Table of Contents
Introduction.
This article talks about the golden rule of interpretation. The function of interpretation mainly lies in the court. In case any ambiguity or confusion arises as to meaning of certain words or expressions in the law, the function of court is to ascertain its true meaning on the basis will expressed by the legislature. This is done by interpreting intention of the legislature through language used in the statute. There are certain principles which have been developed for resolving ambiguities and have been evolved by continuous exercise of interpretation by the courts such as the grammatical rule, golden rule etc.
The golden rule of interpretation is a step ahead of the literal rule of interpretation . The golden rule interprets the language to prevent absurdities and inconsistencies that may result from a literal reading, whereas the literal rule concentrates on the precise meaning of the words in legal language. In order to convey the intended meaning of words, the golden rule modifies the vocabulary and grammar of words used in statutes and other interpretive texts.
Meaning of Golden Rule of Interpretation
The golden rule of interpretation is an expansion or extension of the literal rule and a step ahead of the literal rule of interpretation, allowing judges to deviate from the strict literal meaning of words to prevent absurd outcomes.
The court should generally stick with the ordinary or the grammatical meaning of words in a statute but when the meaning of a word is ambiguous or confusing and it has more than one conceivable meanings, the judge applies the criterion of golden rule of interpretation that is the court interprets the language to prevent the absurdities and inconsistencies that may have resulted from the literal reading.
Additionally, in the broader perspective, the golden rule is frequently applied when a word has just one literal meaning but using that meaning would produce an absurd outcome. In order to prevent such absurdity, the Court may therefore change how the word is interpreted to remove the absurdity and no further.
Thus, Golden rule of interpretation is, which allows courts to modify the meaning of a law in order to avoid absurd or unreasonable results. It is only applied when the literal meaning of the law is unclear and ambiguous.
Departure from literal rule of interpretation
According to “Golden Rule”, if literal or grammatical construction of a provision is clear, that construction shall prevail, but where some doubt or ambiguity or absurdity exists and there is strong and obvious reason for such doubt, the strict grammatical or literal construction can be discarded and golden rule adopted. The object of the rule is to avoid absurd results. Such departure therefore is allowed only when grammatical interpretation results in absurdity.
Some Definitions of golden rule of interpretation
LORD WENSLEYDALE observed that “in construing the statutes, as in construing all other written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or some inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity, but no further.” LORD WENSLEYDALE considered it as “Golden Rule” for interpretation of statutes.
VISCOUNT SIMOND observed that the Golden Rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. Natural and ordinary meaning of the words should not be departed from unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning.
Some features of the golden rule of interpretation
- It’s a modification of literal rule of interpretation.
- Interprets words in such a way that anomalies and absurdities of literal rule are avoided.
- It departs from strictly literal rules to avoid absurd results.
- Intention of legislature is utmost important: it says that the court must find out intention of legislature from words used in the statute by giving them their natural meaning but if it leads to absurdity, inconvenience, hardship, injustice or evasion the court must modify the meaning to such an extent and no further as would prevent such a consequence.
Reasons for development of the golden rule of interpretation
1. Avoids absurdity
When the use of literal rule of interpretation leads to absurdity and ambiguities, the court has to depart from the grammatical or literal meaning of the words for the purpose of removing such absurdity. That is done by the golden rule of interpretation.
The Court must, however, proceed with caution and refrain from departing from a statute’s provision that, on its face, appears to have a relatively obvious and unambiguous meaning. This implies that the Court’s ability to amend or redefine the law is limited. The Court must make an effort to interpret the statute’s language in accordance with its intended meaning.
2. Resorted to in case of ambiguity
Unless the words of the law are absurd, ambiguous or lack a proper meaning, it is generally preferable to interpret them based on their natural and ordinary meaning. This approach ensures consistency and maintains the integrity of the legislative intent.
Advantages of the Golden Rules of Statutory Interpretation:
1. Selection of most sensible meaning
The golden rule of interpretation allows judges to select the most sensible meaning when there are multiple possible meanings for words in an Act or Statute. The words chosen by parliament are respected through literal rule, except in limited circumstances of absurdity and ambiguity where the golden rule is applied.
2. Redressal of problems of strict rule of interpretation
As it offers an alternative interpretation to avoid absurd or repugnant situations, one of the key benefits of the golden rule is that it provides a way to address problems that may arise from a strictly literal interpretation.
3. Immediate correction of drafting errors:
Another advantage of the golden rule is that it enables immediate correction of statute’s drafting errors. As literal interpretation will not work in case of drafting error in the statute, golden rule solves the problem by removing absurdities.
4. A solution to absurdity and ambiguity in legal language:
It requires the Court to interpret laws in a way that best serves their intended purposes where applying a literal interpretation would be absurd or would contradict the original intent of the legislature. Unless the words of the law are absurd, ambiguous or lack a proper meaning, it is generally preferable to interpret them based on their natural and ordinary meaning. It is in case of ambiguity and absurdity that golden rule finds place
Disadvantages of the Golden Rules of Interpretation of Statutes
- Use is quite limited: Its use is limited and reserved for rare occasions when the literal rule of interpretation leads to absurdity and ambiguities.
- Non uniform: Each court may interpret the words differently resulting in inconsistent outcomes which may undermine the intended purpose of the rule. Application of this rule depends upon the wisdom and integrity of judges which may vary thus leading to potential injustice
- Not predictable: The unpredictability of whether courts will apply the golden rule and how will they apply it, poses challenges for lawyers and individuals seeking legal advice. It means that the outcomes of cases can heavily depend on the personal interpretation and subjectivity of individual judges rather than strictly following the law.
- Subjective: Since each judge may have a unique opinion about the meaning of same ambiguous word, the results of the golden rule of interpretation are subjective in nature.
- Limited Application: Where there is no absurdity, the golden rule may not be helpful.
Application of the Golden Rule of Interpretation of Statutes in India
Case laws
- Ramji Missir v. State of Bihar (1962)1963AIR1088
Facts:
In interpreting the Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Supreme Court laid down that the date on which the age of the offender had to be determined is not the date of offence, but the date on which the sentence is pronounced by the trial court An accused who on the date of offence was below 21 years of age but on the date on which the judgment pronounced, if he was above 21 years, he is not entitled to the benefit of the statute.
Held:
This conclusion reached having regard to the object of the Act. The object of the Statute is to prevent the turning of the youthful offenders into criminals by their association. with the hardened criminals of mature age within the walls of the prison. An accused below 21 years is entitled to the benefit of the Act by sending him under the supervision of the probation officer instead of jail.
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company (1967) AIR 1967 SC 276
Facts:
In this case, a transport vehicle belonging to the defendant was found to be carrying a parcel of opium during a routine check by authorities. The defendant presented an invoice indicating that the parcel contained crates of apples as the sole item. As per Section 11 of the Opium Act of 1878, all vehicles transporting contraband articles were to be impounded and the articles confiscated.
The transport company argued that they did not know the opium present in their vehicle. The main issue was whether the magistrate was obligated to confiscate the vehicle based on the wording of Section 11 of the Opium Act of 1878.
Held:
The High Court ruled that it would be unjust to confiscate the vehicle of an individual who did not know of the presence of opium. Considering that the statute in question was penal, it should be interpreted in a manner that does not penalize someone who has not committed an offence. The word “shall” in “shall be confiscated” was interpreted to mean “may” in the context of such cases.
Therefore, the golden rule of interpretation was applied to remove the obligation under Section 11 of the Act. If the literal rule had been followed, it would have resulted in a grave injustice by penalizing an innocent person.
3. Lee v. Knapp (1967) (1967) 2 QB 442
Facts:
In this case, the defendant was driving around the block to demonstrate the ease of driving the company’s new vehicle to the van driver. Unfortunately, during the demonstration, the van collided with a parked vehicle. Section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act of 1960 states that the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident causing damage to another vehicle must stop and provide their information and the car’s identification marks.
While the defendant did stop, they failed to provide the required details as mandated by the Section personally. The main issue was whether “stop” included stopping for a reasonable period before leaving the accident scene.
Held:
The Court concluded that the defendant did not stop for a reasonable period and failed to make an effort to search for the owner of the other vehicle. Furthermore, the defendant’s failure to provide the details personally violated Section 77(1) of the Act. In this case, the golden rule of interpretation was applied to interpret the word “stop” more expansively, including actively searching for the victim.
As a result, the defendant was held liable under Section 77(1) of the Act. In this case, applying the golden rule broadened the meaning of “stop”. It emphasised the defendant’s responsibility to search for the victim, leading to their legal obligation to provide the required information.
4. In Karnail Singh v. Mohinder Kaur AIR 2003 P&H 135
Facts:
A testator had made a will in favor of his three sons and had deliberately disinherited his three daughters. During the lifetime of the testator one of these three sons died issueless leaving only his widow. The testator did not change his will and died about two years and nine months after his son’s death.
Held:
Interpreting the expression ‘lineal descendant’ in Section 109 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the Punjab and Haryana High Court while applying the golden rule stated that if the testator had any intention of disinheriting the widow of his pre-deceased son he could easily
have made another will or could have executed a codicil to the existing will. Thus, his intention was clear to the effect that the widow should succeed to the legacy of his pre-deceased son.
5. In M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa AIR 1961 SC 1105
Facts:
the respondents were elected members of a municipal committee under the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committee Act, 1951 which was repealed by the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956. The Act of 1956, however, provided that the Committee constituted under the Act of 1951 would continue till the first meeting of the Committee elected under the Act of 1956 was called.
Since no elections were held the old Committee continued in office for more than three years, the maximum period provided for a Committee to hold office under the Act of 1951. The appellant prayed for a writ of quo warranto.
Held:
The Supreme Court, agreeing with the prayer, held that if more than one construction were possible the one which was narrower and failed to achieve the object of the Act should fail. The Act should be so interpreted as to avoid absurdity. In the present case since the Act of 1956 continued with the Committee constituted under the Act of 1951 till elections took place and the first meeting of the newly elected members held, it is reasonable to hold that the provision of maximum period of tenure of the Committee under the old Act should also stand under the new Act.
Therefore, if no elections are held, the members of the Committee automatically cease to be members after the expiry of the three year period.
Also Read:
writ of prohibition under article 32, 226 of Indian constitution: https://kanoonnotes.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1646&action=edit
7 important sources of Hindu Law: https://kanoonnotes.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1602&action=edit
