Literal rule of Interpretation

Literal Rule of statute interpretation states that the words of an enactment are
to be given their Ordinary and Natural meaning.

Words and Phrases will have their general meaning in Statutes.

Phrases and sentences are constructed according to the rules of grammar.

 Lalita Kumari v. State of UP
AIR 2014 SC 187
 Where wordings of the statute are absolutely clear and
unambiguous, rule of literal construction is to be
applied and recourse to other principles of
interpretation is not required.
 Lalita Kumari v. State of UP

 The main question was interpretation of Section 154 of Crpc, 1973.

 The court held that Literal interpretation is the rule and only if language of
an enactment is ambiguous recourse to other rule can be taken.
 The use of word “Shall” in section 154 of the code leaves no discretion to
police officer to hold preliminary inquiry before recording FIR.
 Where the meaning of the word or expression is not clear literal rule of
interpretation is not applicable.

Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co.

(2010) 1 SCC 135

 Only when literal construction results in some absurdity or

anomaly, other principles of interpretation may be applied.
 ADHERE TO LITERAL RULE

AJAY MAKEN V ADESH KUMAR GUPTA

(2013) 3 SCC 489

 Ordinarily, court should not depart from literal

rule as that would really be amending the law
in the garb of interpretation which is not
permissible.
 According to this rule, Judges should
follow litera legis i.e go by the words of
the law in ascertaining the law.
 It is a general assumption that
legislation has said what it meant and
meant what it said. A judge should not
go beyond the words of the statute
during interpretation.
J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan
2003 (5) SCC 134
 The intention of the legislature is primarily to be
gathered from the language used, which means that
attention should be paid to what has been said as also to
what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction
which requires for its support, addition, substitution, or
removal of words or which results in rejection of words as
meaningless has to be avoided.
 This rule of interpretation can be easily understood
under the following heads:-
 Natural and Grammatical Meaning
 Exact meaning, preferred to loose meaning
 Technical words in technical sense.
 NATURAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING

Go according to Grammatical meaning

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal

(2011) 4 SCC 266

HELD:- Where the words are clear, there is no ambiguity, no obscurity and the
intention of the legislation is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to
innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statuary
provisions.
 Technical words to be used in technical sense

 The general words must be assigned ordinary and natural meaning but the
technical words are to be used in technical sense only.
 According to Lord Esher, M.R., says that if the Act is one passed with
reference to a particular trade or business or transaction and words are used
which everybody conversant with that trade or business or transaction knows
and understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be
construed as having that particular meaning.
Dunlop India Ltd. And Madras Rubber Factory Ltd v. Union of India (AIR
1977 SC 597)

 The court observed that when a word acquires a particular

meaning in the trade or commercial circle, that meaning
becomes the popular meaning in that context and therefore
should be normally accepted.
 Legal sense of Words
State of Punjab v. Inder Singh
AIR 1998 SC 839

 When a word has acquired a special meaning in law, the dictionaries cease to be helpful
anymore in interpreting that word. The word. ‘deputation’ has different in service law
and the dictionary meaning is of no help.
 Dictionary meaning- the act of appointing a person or persons to represent or act for
another or others.
 “Deputation” means service outside Cadre or the parent department.
 It is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre on temporary basis.
 APPLICATION
Prabhat Sound Studious v. Addl. Collector of Central Excise
(1997) SC

Held:- Recording of sound on blank tapes does not result in manufacture.

 Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd.
AIR 1998 SC 839

It was held that printing on glass bottle does not amount to

manufacture.
 Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor
AIR 1939 PC 47
 Section 162(1) of the Crpc was in
question, which provides that no
statement made by any person to a
police officer in course of
investigation shall, if reduced to
writing, be signed by the person
making it.
 The words “ANY PERSON” used in
the language were construed and it was
observed by Lord ATKIN that this term
includes any person who may
thereafter be accused and further that
when the meaning of words is plain, it
is not the duty of courts to busy
themselves with the supposed
intention.
 M.V JOSHI v. M.U. SHIMPI
AIR 1961 SC 1594
 The word “butter” used in interpretation of FOOD ADULTERATION
RULES, 1955 was construed. The language of these rules provided that
“Butter” means a product prepared exclusively from milk or cream of cow
or buffalo or both. Considering the plain and ordinary meaning of the word
“ Butter”, Supreme court held that the meaning of the term cannot be
restricted and it includes the butter prepared from curd.