The terms of a statute must be prima facie according to the golden rule to obtain their ordinary meaning, because if the meaning of the word is clear, it is not the duty of the courts to deal with the alleged intent. But if grammatical interpretation leads to absurdity, it is permissible to deviate from the arrangement of the statues and interpret them in such a way as to eliminate absurdity. [6] The first interpretation would in no way serve the purpose for which the provision was originally enacted. Interpretation can be grammatical or logical. The interpretation of statutes falls within the realm of logical interpretation, although sometimes grammatical interpretation is also necessary if different circumstances are derived from the given rules. Often, words do not project meaning by themselves. Austin has also contributed to the extensive literature on rules of interpretation. He divided the interpretive process into three sub-trials: In this case, the judge had made some comments on the interpretation of the law, which was consistent with the English judgments cited above. The court ruled that when a deficiency arises, a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the cartoonist. It must tackle the constructive task of finding Parliament`s intention, and then it must complement the writing to give « strength and life » to the intention of the legislator. Three basic rules[xviii] are proposed in English cases: In Tirath Singh v. Bachitter Singh,[21] the plaintiff argued that section 99(1)(a) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 required the court to register the names of all persons guilty of corrupt practices, including parties and non-parties to the application, and provided that all persons appointed under section 99(1)(a)(ii) are notified.
is therefore entitled to a new termination. The Supreme Court stated that such an interpretation would lead to absurdity and held that the reservation, together with subparagraph (b) and the definition of the article, indicated that termination would be considered only against non-parties to the application. Justice Holmes had stated that a word is not a crystal, transparent or unchanged. It is the product of thought and has the ability to vary greatly in color and content depending on the surrounding circumstances and when it is used. When the meaning of words is uncertain, the application of the Golden Rule may be necessary. The main objective of the court is to establish justice, and for this a correct interpretation must be made. The literal rule should be used first, but if it leads to absurdity, the ordinary meaning of the word can be changed to avoid this absurdity, but no further. Interpretation is the method by which the true meaning or meaning of the word is understood. [i] The meaning of an ordinary word in the English language is not a question of law. The correct interpretation of a law is a question of law. The purpose of interpreting the law is to remove the barriers set by Parliament. For such an unlocking, the keys must be found.
These keys can be called interpretive aids and interpretive principles. It was Lord Wensleydale who first coined the term golden rule of interpretation in Grey v Pearson,[3] and even used the same analogy discussed above to adhere to the golden rule. In Luke v R R V [4], Lord Reid noted that if the literal interpretation destroyed the purpose of the law and nullified Parliament`s intent, the court would have to use some « force » in the literal sense and modify it to the extent that the irregularity disappears. In The Interpretation of Statutes,[5] Maxwell gives several examples of how the rule has been applied by judges in different areas of law. This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule creates an absurdity, the court should look for a different meaning of the words to avoid this absurd result. The rule was precisely defined by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Case 61, who stated: In Lee v. Knapp,[17] section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 provided that « a driver causing an accident shall stop after the accident », the interpretation of the word « stop » was questionable. In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after an accident and then fled. Applying the golden rule, the court found that the driver had not complied with the requirement of the section because he had not stopped for a reasonable time to allow interested persons to inquire about the accident at the scene of the accident. Odgers mentions the first three rules as stages of interpretation, namely the literal rule, followed by the golden rule and finally the rule of calamity. Vacher v.
London Society of Compositors[10] is an example of the application of the three rules. Literal and golden rules have specific applications and therefore cannot be compared. The literal rule is used in most cases to extract the true meaning of the law by simply reading the language. The golden rule, on the other hand, is used to alter the meaning of the provision where the literal meaning leads ad absurdum in the present case. In J Sreenivasa Rao v Govt of AP,[14] it was held that tax law can only be interpreted by the golden rule of interpretation. In this case, however, the rule was used as a synonym for the rule of literal interpretation. The rule was used in Adler v. George (1964) to avoid an absurd result. Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was a criminal offence to obstruct Her Majesty`s forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place.