Gitarattan International Business School

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
LLB 406
BBALLB SEM 8
L 35
Date of releasing assignment: 24/03/2020
Date of submission of assignment: 25/03/2020 by 8 am

Rules of interpretation
Golden Rule
Golden Rule is a rule of construction of statutes. It says interpretation is to be done in such way that in
the first instance the grammatical sense of the word is to be adhered to. If that is contrary to or
inconsistent with aby expressed intention or declared purpose of the statute or if it would involve any
absurdity, repugnance, or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended, or
abridged so far as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further.

In Becke vs Smith (1836) 2 M&W 191, 6 LJ Ex 54,150 ER 742 Parke B formulated this rule of construction.
In his words

“If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgement, we are bound to construe them
in their ordinary sense, even though it does lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity or manifest
injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or obscure, but we assume the
function of legislators when we depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise words used merely
because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an adherence to their literal
meaning.”

Though the principle was first coined in 1836 but the term Golden Rule was used for the first time by Lord
Wensleydale in Grey vs Pearsin (1857)6 HL as 61, p 106, 26 LJ Ch 473, p 481 therefore it is also known as
Lord Wensleydale’s Golden Rule. In this case this was expressed as follows

“ I have been long and deeply impressed with the wisdom of the rule, now I believe universally adopted
at least in the courts of law in Westminster Hall that in construing wills, and indeed statutes and all written
instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead
to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the word may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and
inconsistency, but no further.”.

Privy council on Golden Rule

In Corporation of the City of Victoria Vs Bishop of Vancouver Island AIR 1921 PC 240-42 it was observed
by Lord Atkinson

“In the construction of statutes, their words must be interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense ,
unless there be something in their context, or in the object of the statute in which they occur, or in the
circumstances with reference to which they are used, to show that they were used in a special sense
different from their ordinary grammatical sense. Exigencies of business, for instance, cannot deflect the
court from adopting the only interpretation which the language of the enactment bears.”

Supreme Court of India on Golden Rule

In New Piece Goods Bazar Co Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay AIR 1950 SC165 it was
observed “ it is an elementary duty of a court to give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed
in the words used by it and no outside consideration can be called in aid to find that intention”

Again, in Rananjaya Singh Vs Baijnath Singh, AIR 1954 SC 749 it was observed

“The spirit of the law may well be an elusive and unsafe guide and the supposed spirit can certainly not
be given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the section of the Act and the rules made
thereunder. If all that can be said of these statutory provisions is that construed according to ordinary,
grammatical and natural meaning of their language they work injustice by placing the poorer candidates
at a disadvantage, the appeal must be to Parliament and not to this court”

Again, in Navin Chandra Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1955)1SCR 829 it was observed

“ The cardinal rule of interpretation, however, is that words should be read in their ordinary, natural and
grammatical meaning subject to this rider that in construing words in a constitutional enactment
conferring legislative power the most liberal construction should be put upon the words so that the same
may effect in their widest amplitude.”

In Bootamal vs Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1716 the golden rule of grammatical construction was adopted
by the Supreme Court in resolving the divergent views on the interpretation of the words “when the goods
ought to have been delivered” occurring in art 31 of the Limitation Act 1908. The view taken by some of
the high courts that time begins to run from the date on which the railway finally refused to deliver the
goods has now been overruled.

In Bharat Sing Vs Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi, AIR 1986 SC842 it was
observed “We share the view that where the words are plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to
them”

In Madan Lal vs Changdeo Sugar Mills AIR 1962 SC 1543 it was observed

“The elementary rule is that words used in a section must be given their plain grammatical meaning”

In Prof Yashpal Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2005)5 SCC 420 the Supreme Court while interpreting the term
‘universities’ observed that the golden rule of interpretation is that words should be read in their ordinary,
natural and grammatical meaning.

Assignment

1. Write a short note on Golden Rule. Explain with the help of observations of Indian and foreign court in
this regard (Word limit 150)
▪ Assignment has to be submitted through email within 8am next day i.e. 25.3.2020
▪ It can be handwritten or typed. In word document or pdf.
▪ Document must be named in following manner:
BBALLB8_STUDENT NAME_ASSIGNMENT DATE AND LECTURE NO_SUBJECT

FACULTY EMAIL ID: anindyaprosad.konar@gitarattan.edu.in