Literal or Grammatical Rule of Interpretation

(1)

Literal or

Grammatical Rule of

Interpretation & The

Golden Rule

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

Ms.

Ms. Anju

Anju Berwal

Berwal

Surya

Surya Sharma

Sharma

B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

5

thth

Semester

Group-1(Section-B)

Roll No.: 100/13

(2)

TABLE OF CASES



 Lord Wensleydale in Becke v Smith,1836Lord Wensleydale in Becke v Smith,1836



 Grey v Pearson, 1857Grey v Pearson, 1857



 Corporation of City of Nagpur v. Employees AIR 1960 SC 675Corporation of City of Nagpur v. Employees AIR 1960 SC 675



 Lee v. Knapp (1967) 2 QB Lee v. Knapp (1967) 2 QB 442442



 M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO, AIR 1973 SC 1034M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO, AIR 1973 SC 1034



 Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi AIRBharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi AIR

1986 SC 842 1986 SC 842



 Dharamchand Khushalchand Mutha v. Anjana Medical Surgical Stores, throughDharamchand Khushalchand Mutha v. Anjana Medical Surgical Stores, through

Partners 1992 Bom CJ 453 (Bom). Partners 1992 Bom CJ 453 (Bom).



 Oriental Insurance Ltd Co. v. Sardar Sadhu Singh, AIR 1994 Raj 44.Oriental Insurance Ltd Co. v. Sardar Sadhu Singh, AIR 1994 Raj 44.



 Manipal v. State of Karnataka AIR 1995 Kant 273Manipal v. State of Karnataka AIR 1995 Kant 273



 Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab AIR Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 25242001 SC 2524



 PUCL v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363PUCL v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363



 B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, AIR 2011 SC 1925B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, AIR 2011 SC 1925



 Justice Chandrashekaraiah (retd.) v. Jenekere C. Krishna and others, Justice Chandrashekaraiah (retd.) v. Jenekere C. Krishna and others, AIR 2013 SCAIR 2013 SC

726 726



(3)

Literal or Grammatical Rule of Interpretation

If the words given in

If the words given in the statute are lucid and the statute are lucid and explicit, it is not for the judges explicit, it is not for the judges to go beyondto go beyond that language or words to try and

that language or words to try and establish what the legislative might have meant by usingestablish what the legislative might have meant by using that word. It is also known as “Grammatical Interpretation”.

that word. It is also known as “Grammatical Interpretation”.11 The Courts have to follow The Courts have to follow this principle even if it results in irrationality or even if it is contrary to the policy or this principle even if it results in irrationality or even if it is contrary to the policy or intention of legislature. It doesn’t look beyond the

intention of legislature. It doesn’t look beyond the litera legislitera legis which means letter of which means letter of legislation.

legislation.22_{It just looks at what law says. Words and phrases are to be construed by the}_{It just looks at what law says. Words and phrases are to be construed by the}

courts in their ordinary sense, and the ordinary rules of grammar and punctuation have to courts in their ordinary sense, and the ordinary rules of grammar and punctuation have to be applied.

be applied.

If, applying this rule, a clear meaning appears, then this must be applied, and the courts If, applying this rule, a clear meaning appears, then this must be applied, and the courts will not inquire whether what the statute says

will not inquire whether what the statute says represents the intention of the legislature. Inrepresents the intention of the legislature. In order to determine the literal meaning of

order to determine the literal meaning of a statute the a statute the courts have to ascertain the courts have to ascertain the ordinaryordinary meaning of a word in a statute by referring to a dictionary or scientific or any other meaning of a word in a statute by referring to a dictionary or scientific or any other technical works where the words have been used. It is a rule of construction of statutes technical works where the words have been used. It is a rule of construction of statutes that in the first instance the grammatical sense of the word is to be adhered to.

that in the first instance the grammatical sense of the word is to be adhered to.33_{The words}_{The words}

of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.

of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.44 If the words of the statute If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the court to give effect to the natural are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in provision.

meaning of the words used in provision.55 The sole purpos

The sole purpose of interpretatie of interpretation is to discovon is to discover what the legier what the legislature intendslature intended. ed. If theIf the words of t

words of the statute are in the statute are in themselves precise and hemselves precise and unambiguouunambiguous, s, then no more cathen no more can ben be necessary than to expound words in their natural and ordinary send because the words necessary than to expound words in their natural and ordinary send because the words themselves alone, in such cases, best declare the intention of the law-giver. Thus, where themselves alone, in such cases, best declare the intention of the law-giver. Thus, where the words used in the language and clear and precise and suffer with no ambiguity, the the words used in the language and clear and precise and suffer with no ambiguity, the legislativ

legislative intent has to e intent has to be gathered from the language itself.be gathered from the language itself.

Under the literal rule/grammatical rule, it is the task of the court to give a statute’s words Under the literal rule/grammatical rule, it is the task of the court to give a statute’s words their literal meaning regardless of whether the result is sensible or not.

their literal meaning regardless of whether the result is sensible or not.

1

1_{Corporation of City of Nagpur v. Employees AIR 1960 SC 675}_{Corporation of City of Nagpur v. Employees AIR 1960 SC 675} 2

2_{AIYER,P.RAMNATHAN, LAW LEXICON 1363 (2nd ed.,Wadhwa and Co., ,2002).}_{AIYER,P.RAMNATHAN, LAW LEXICON 1363 (2nd ed.,Wadhwa and Co., ,2002).} 3

3_{Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi AIR 1986 SC 842}_{Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi AIR 1986 SC 842} 4

4_{Oriental Insurance Ltd Co. v. Sardar Sadhu Singh, AIR 1994 Raj 44.}_{Oriental Insurance Ltd Co. v. Sardar Sadhu Singh, AIR 1994 Raj 44.} 5

(4)

In other words, a statute should be read as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. In other words, a statute should be read as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. This rule is the most widely used Rule of Interpretation for the statutes to ascertain the This rule is the most widely used Rule of Interpretation for the statutes to ascertain the legislativ

legislative intention behind the e intention behind the framing of the enactment.framing of the enactment.

Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, that Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, that construction ought to prevail unless there be some strong and obvious reason to the construction ought to prevail unless there be some strong and obvious reason to the contrary.

contrary.66

The rule governs and regulates the meaning of the law in as much as the rule provides The rule governs and regulates the meaning of the law in as much as the rule provides that the meaning has to be ascertained from the text of the law itself. In M/s. Hiralal that the meaning has to be ascertained from the text of the law itself. In M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO

Ratanlal v. STO77_{, this Court observed that:}_{, this Court observed that:}

In interpreting a statutory provision the first and foremost rule of interpretation is the In interpreting a statutory provision the first and foremost rule of interpretation is the literally construction. All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the literally construction. All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision say.

provision say. If If the the provision is provision is unambiguounambiguous us and and if if from from the the provision provision the the legislativlegislativee intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear.

clear.

Moreover, it is been regularly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that one of the Moreover, it is been regularly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that one of the basic

basic principles principles of of interpretation of interpretation of Statutes Statutes is is to to construe construe the the words words according according to to theirtheir plain,

plain, literal literal and and grammatical grammatical meaning. meaning. If If this this principle principle is is contrary contrary to, to, or or inconsistentinconsistent with, any express intention or declared purpose of the Statute, or if it would involve any with, any express intention or declared purpose of the Statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended or abridged, so far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further. The onus extended or abridged, so far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further. The onus of showing that the words do not mean what they say lies heavily on the party who of showing that the words do not mean what they say lies heavily on the party who alleges it.

alleges it.

The intention of the Legislature is to be found in the words used by the legislature which The intention of the Legislature is to be found in the words used by the legislature which is the primary rule of interpretation.

is the primary rule of interpretation.88

Once the Court departs from the literal rule then any number of interpretations can be put Once the Court departs from the literal rule then any number of interpretations can be put to a statutory provision, each judge having a free play to put his own interpretation as he to a statutory provision, each judge having a free play to put his own interpretation as he

6

6_{PUCL v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363}_{PUCL v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363} 7

7_{AIR 1973 SC 1034}_{AIR 1973 SC 1034} 8

(5)

likes. This would be destructive of judicial discipline and also the basic principle that it is likes. This would be destructive of judicial discipline and also the basic principle that it is not for the Court to legislate. Even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or not for the Court to legislate. Even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience it has to be followed. Hence departure from the literal rule should only be inconvenience it has to be followed. Hence departure from the literal rule should only be done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should be judicial restraint in this done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should be judicial restraint in this connection.

connection.99

It is incumbent on the court to use the grammatical meaning. The statutes should be It is incumbent on the court to use the grammatical meaning. The statutes should be construed in such a manner as though there is no other meaning except the literal construed in such a manner as though there is no other meaning except the literal meaning.

meaning.

If the language of a

If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous the court must give effect to statute is clear and unambiguous the court must give effect to it and itit and it has no right to extend its operation in order to carry out the real or supposed intention of has no right to extend its operation in order to carry out the real or supposed intention of the legislature.

the legislature.1010

The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation is the rule and only if language of an The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation is the rule and only if language of an enactment is ambiguous recourse to other rule can be

enactment is ambiguous recourse to other rule can be taken.taken.1111

The Courts cannot add words to a statute or read the words into which are not there. The The Courts cannot add words to a statute or read the words into which are not there. The Courts should proceed on the assumption that the

Courts should proceed on the assumption that the Legislature did not make a Legislature did not make a mistake andmistake and that it intended to say what is said.

that it intended to say what is said.1212

9

9_{B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, AIR 2011 SC 1925}_{B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, AIR 2011 SC 1925} 10

10 _{MN RAO & AMITA DHANDA, N S BINDRA’S INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 433(10th edn Lexis}_{MN RAO & AMITA DHANDA, N S BINDRA’S INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 433(10th edn Lexis}

Nexis Butterworths, 2007). Nexis Butterworths, 2007).

11

11_{Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2014 SC 184}_{Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2014 SC 184} 12

12_{Dharamchand Khushalchand Mutha v. Anjana Medical Surgical Stores, through Partners 1992 Bom CJ 453}_{Dharamchand Khushalchand Mutha v. Anjana Medical Surgical Stores, through Partners 1992 Bom CJ 453}

(Bom). (Bom).

(6)

Golden Rule of Interpretation

This rule is modified form of literal rule. It allows departure from strict literalness by This rule is modified form of literal rule. It allows departure from strict literalness by recourse to consequences of

recourse to consequences of applying natural or the ordinary meaning.applying natural or the ordinary meaning.

According to the literal rule the grammatical or literal sense of words to be adhered to. According to the literal rule the grammatical or literal sense of words to be adhered to. But if the literal interpretation leads to absurdity or some inconsistency with the rest of But if the literal interpretation leads to absurdity or some inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, the literal interpretation may be dispensed with and grammatical and the instrument, the literal interpretation may be dispensed with and grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity. This is the ordinary meaning of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity. This is the golden rule.

golden rule.

It says that ordinarily the Court must find out the intention of the legislature from the It says that ordinarily the Court must find out the intention of the legislature from the words used in the statute by giving them their natural meaning but if this leads to words used in the statute by giving them their natural meaning but if this leads to absurdity, repugnance, inconvenience, hardship, injustice or evasion, the Court must absurdity, repugnance, inconvenience, hardship, injustice or evasion, the Court must modify the meaning to such an extent and no further as would prevent such a modify the meaning to such an extent and no further as would prevent such a consequence. On the face of it, this rule solves all the problems and is, therefore, known consequence. On the face of it, this rule solves all the problems and is, therefore, known as the golden rule.

as the golden rule.

According to this rule, the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary According to this rule, the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning because when meaning of the word is plain, it is not the duty of the courts to meaning because when meaning of the word is plain, it is not the duty of the courts to busy

busy themselves themselves with with supposed supposed intentiointention. n. But But when when grammatical grammatical interpretation leads interpretation leads toto absurdity it is permissible to depart from and to interpret the provision of statutes in such absurdity it is permissible to depart from and to interpret the provision of statutes in such a manner so that absurdity is re

a manner so that absurdity is removed.moved.

The court when faced with more than one possible interpretation of an enactment is The court when faced with more than one possible interpretation of an enactment is entitled to take into consideration the result of each interpretation in a bid to arrive at the entitled to take into consideration the result of each interpretation in a bid to arrive at the true intention of the legislature.

true intention of the legislature.

The golden rule comes into play where some doubt exists so as to the meaning of the The golden rule comes into play where some doubt exists so as to the meaning of the word. Where absurdity or inconsistency flows from literal construction and such word. Where absurdity or inconsistency flows from literal construction and such construction cannot be reasonably accepted to be the true one, the Golden Rule may be construction cannot be reasonably accepted to be the true one, the Golden Rule may be invoked to remove such absurdity.

invoked to remove such absurdity.

Like the literal interpretation rule, it gives the words of a statute their literal, ordinary Like the literal interpretation rule, it gives the words of a statute their literal, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's intenti

(7)

where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge can choose the preferred where a word can have more than one meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning.

meaning.

The Supreme Court in a case observed that to find the meaning of a word not defined in The Supreme Court in a case observed that to find the meaning of a word not defined in an enactment the c

an enactment the court apply the ‘subject and object rule’ which means it is necessary toourt apply the ‘subject and object rule’ which means it is necessary to ascertain carefully the subject of the enactment where the word occurs

ascertain carefully the subject of the enactment where the word occurs and have regard toand have regard to the object which the legislature has in view. In selecting one out of the various meanings the object which the legislature has in view. In selecting one out of the various meanings of a word regard must always be

of a word regard must always be had to the context.had to the context.1313

The golden rule can be

The golden rule can be applied in two ways:applied in two ways: Narrow Approach

Narrow Approach- This approach is applied when the word or phrase is - This approach is applied when the word or phrase is capable of morecapable of more than one literal meaning. This allows the judge to apply the meaning which avoids the than one literal meaning. This allows the judge to apply the meaning which avoids the absurdity.

absurdity.

Broad Approach

Broad Approach- This approach is applied when there is only one literal meaning. But- This approach is applied when there is only one literal meaning. But applying that one literal meaning would cause

applying that one literal meaning would cause an absurdity. Under this approach the an absurdity. Under this approach the courtcourt will modify the meaning to avoid the absurdity. The modification shall be made keeping will modify the meaning to avoid the absurdity. The modification shall be made keeping in mind the intention of the Parliament in making the law in

in mind the intention of the Parliament in making the law in question.question.

The golden rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a The golden rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a word(s) if the overall content of the document demands it. It states that if the literal rule word(s) if the overall content of the document demands it. It states that if the literal rule produces

produces an an absurdityabsurdity, , then then the the court court should should look look for for another another meaning meaning of of the the words words toto avoid that absurd result. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be avoid that absurd result. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to

adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistencysome absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther. words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther. 1414 In Lee v. Knapp,

In Lee v. Knapp,1515 _{interpretation of the word ‘stop’ was involved. Under section 77(1) of}_{interpretation of the word ‘stop’ was involved. Under section 77(1) of}

the Road Traffic Act, 1960 a driver causing an accident shall ‘stop’ after the accident. In the Road Traffic Act, 1960 a driver causing an accident shall ‘stop’ after the accident. In this case a driver stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then went away. this case a driver stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then went away. The defence taken by the driver was that as per the literal meaning of the section, he The defence taken by the driver was that as per the literal meaning of the section, he stopped after causing the accident and then went away. Applying the golden rule, the stopped after causing the accident and then went away. Applying the golden rule, the

13

13_{Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2524}_{Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2524} 14

14_{Lord Wensleydale in}_{Lord Wensleydale in Becke v Smith,1836}_{Becke v Smith,1836 and in Grey}_{and in Grey v Pearson, 1857}_{v Pearson, 1857}

15 15

(1967) 2 QB 442 (1967) 2 QB 442

(8)

court held that requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver as he had court held that requirement of the section had not been followed by the driver as he had stopped for a reasonable period requiring interested persons to make necessary inquiries stopped for a reasonable period requiring interested persons to make necessary inquiries from him about the accident.

from him about the accident.

It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute as it allows to adhere to the ordinary It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute as it allows to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to

meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variancethe grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case it allows the language to be varied or manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case it allows the language to be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience.

(9)

Bibliography



Books



 Langan P St. J,Langan P St. J, Maxwell on the interpretation of Statutes, Lexis NexisMaxwell on the interpretation of Statutes, Lexis Nexis

Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur; Twelfth edition (2010). Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur; Twelfth edition (2010).



 BhattacharyyBhattacharyya Prof T., a Prof T., The Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law Agency,The Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law Agency,

2014 2014



 Sarkar S.C., Principles of Sarkar S.C., Principles of Statutory InterpretatioStatutory Interpretation and n and Statutory Words andStatutory Words and

Phrases, Dwivedi Law Agency, 2008. Phrases, Dwivedi Law Agency, 2008.



 Mathur DN, Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law Publications, 2013.Mathur DN, Interpretation of Statutes, Central Law Publications, 2013.

 

Websites

  www.lawnotes.inwww.lawnotes.in   www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fjwww.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj   www.lawyersclubindia.comwww.lawyersclubindia.com   e-lawresources.co.uke-lawresources.co.uk   www.inbrief.co.uk www.inbrief.co.uk