1.

INTRODUCTION

Interpretation is recognized to be the predominant and necessary feature of the court.

Interpretation without a doubt is a skill to decide the true meaning of the statute. Interpretation
helps to read, understand, observe, and draw a conclusion of the statute. The term Interpretation
has been derived from the Latin phrase "Interpretation" which is an ability to explain, expound,
apprehend, or translate. It entails an act of discovering the real meaning of the language which
has been used in the statute. Interpretation is regularly described as "Correct appreciation of the
Law". After these statutes are established it is the accountability of the Executive body to
execute them after which it is surpassed over to the Judiciary body to practice them. While these
statutes are shaped the Judiciary body is not present and there may be circumstances that the
legal guidelines shaped by way of the Legislative body might not be understood via the Judiciary
body. This is when interpretation is required.1

The goal of the court is not only to purely follow the laws, however, to observe them in a
significant and right manner as may also be required via the case. This technique is adopted with
the aid of the courts to decide the intention of the Legislature which is also the primary objective.
Interpretation is finished in two ways: Grammatical Interpretation and Logical Interpretation.
The former one potentially the verbal expression of the legislature and the later one offer an
impact on the intention of the legislature.2

The three main objectives as to why the interpretation is required are as follows:

1. To parent out the intention of the legislature in the back of the formation of the law.

2. To apprehend the real that means of the provision.

3. To apprehend the strategies of interpreting phrases cited beneath the statute.

1
.M,A Gayatri critical analysis on the literal rule of statutory interpretation available at:
https://journal.indianlegalsolution.com.
2
V.P Sarathi,98.,Interpretation of Statutes Eastern book company, Lucknow,5th Edition 2010.

1
Various definitions given by Jurist3:

As the administration of justice is conducted by the judges in accordance with the provisions of
law, therefore it requires that there are certain rules of interpretation to ensure that just and
uniform decisions are delivered by them. The most important objective that is achieved by the
interpretation of statutes is that it ensures that the court act according to the intent of the
legislature.

According to Cooley, “Interpretation is an art of finding out the true sense of any form of words
i.e.: sense which their author intended to convey and of enabling others to derive from them the
same idea which the author intended to convey.” On the other hand, “Construction” which is
generally regarded as identical as to the interpretation has certain differences. Construction skills
are drawing out a conclusion about the subject.

According to Salmond, “Interpretation or construction is the process by which the courts seek
to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms by which it
is expressed.”

According to Gray, “The process by which a judge constructs from words of a statute book, a
meaning which he either believes to be the legislature, or which he proposed to attribute to it, is
called interpretation.” In the case observed, “If the words are in their plain and unambiguous
manner we are certain to construe them in their ordinary sense, even it does lead in our view to
an absurdity, manifest or injustice.

Words could also be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or obscure, but we
assume the function of legislators once 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
adherence to their literal meaning. Interpretation is the primary function of the judges. There are
three wings of a Government: Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. It is the legislature which
lays down the laws but it is judiciary which puts the law into operation or in use. There arises
need for the judges to ascertain the correct meaning of the law laid by the legislature. 4

3
,Nisita Kapoor, All about Interpretation of statute available at
https://www.latestlaws.com/articles.
4
Ibid.

2
2. MEANING OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

Literal Rule of Interpretation also referred as to grammatical interpretation is a capability that

the phrases utilized in the statute are to provide or deciphered in their common, customary, and
ordinary importance. After the translation, if that importance is clear and unambiguous, at that
point, the effect will be given to the arrangement of the resolution paying little mind to what may
be the results. The exacting standard is believed to be the premier secure guideline of
understanding because of the reality the aim of the lawmaking body is deducted from the
expressions and language utilized. The maxim Absoluta Sententia Expositore Non-Indigent
means, if a plain word has a simple meaning there is no need to interpret it further.5

The literal rule of interpretation has been termed as the primary rule of interpretation. As the
name suggests, the literal rule of interpretation means that the judge literally interprets the
statute. It can also be called the plain-meaning rule or the grammatical rule. Statutes are
constructed using the ordinary meaning of language given to the term and the judges are not
required to interpret the terms in any other way. In other words, the provisions have to be
read word to word and no other meaning can be given to the statute. 6

2.1 SUBSIDIARY RULES OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

There are certain subsidiary rules of Literal Interpretation as follows:

1. Ejusdem Generis: This is a Latin term which suggests that the same kind of words or
words of a particular class or category. It simply means assuming the general meaning of the
words or words of a comparable kind.

In the case of Regina v. Edmundson (1859) 7 Lord Campbell observed: “Where there were
general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined
to things of the same kind as those specified. 8”

5
V.P Sarathi,99.,Interpretation of Statutes Eastern book company, Lucknow,5th Edition 2010
6
Amisha, Literal rule of interpretation available at,
https://lexforti.com/legal-news/explained-literal-rule-of-interpretation
7
Regina vs. Edmundson, (1859) 28 LJMC 213.
8
Nisita Kapoor, All about Interpretation of statute available at https://www.latestlaws.com/articles

3
2. Casus Omissus: The term ‘casus omissus’ means case omitted. It is a fundamental rule of
interpretation. Something that needs to have been supplied in the statute however has no
longer been supplied can't be shared with the aid of the court as that would be legislation
and now not construction. 9

In the case of SP Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. 10 At the point when the language of the
rule is unambiguous, there is no need for the court to rehearse or follow the principle of
Casus Omissus or award outside significance in such a case. The court shall no longer grant
or add any phrases to the suit of what the court thinks is supposed to be the intention of the
legislature.

3. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius : This is a Latin term which means “Express
mention implied exclusion.” It simply means what is stated in the statute leads to
presumption and anything that is not referred to shall be excluded.

3. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

There are certain Advantages and Disadvantages mentioned as follows:

The merits while using literal rule of interpretation. Literal rule of interpretation being a
traditional rule of interpretation is often advocated by jurists of the plain meaning rule who claim
that it prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. They also point out that
ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources 83. It is also
argued, that extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or
their meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation like11:

1. Constitutionally it respects the parliamentary supremacy and the right of parliament to make
any laws.

2. It also encourages precision in drafting and ensures that anyone who can read English can
determine the law, which promotes certainty and reduces litigation.

3. A statute must be presumed to have been used in their natural sense.

9
V.P Sarathi,,Interpretation of Statutes Eastern book company, Lucknow,5th Edition 2010
10
SP Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors, AIR 1982 SC 149.
11
Contemporary Statutory Interpretation. Statutes in Court, pp.151–155. Available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822398202-007.

4
4. Statutes are embodiments of authoritative formulae and the words which are used to constitute
part of law.

Disadvantages: 1. The Parliament is the superior body and considered supreme.

2. Limitation of powers.

3. Creates loopholes in the laws.

4. There might also be a scenario the place a dispute may additionally occur amongst the judges
concerning the natural, ordinary, and famous that meaning of the statute.

4. CRITICISMS ATTACHED WITH LITERAL RULE OF STATUTORY

INTERPRETATION

There are certain defects of the literal rule of interpretation. The defects may be of two types;
Logical defect which constitutes of ambiguity, inconsistency and incompleteness and the second
type is absurdity or irrationality.12

I. AMBIGUITY occurs where a term or an expression used in a statute has not one but various
meanings, and it is not clear which one particular meaning it represents at which particular
context or place. So here the court will have to go beyond the statute and yet stick to the same
literal words of the statute to ascertain its meaning. Also the ambiguity sometimes is “syntactic
“which means the vagueness arises from words like “or”, “and”, “all” and other such words. For
example if a punishment for a certain crime is “fine or imprisonment or both”, the court can
imprison the accused or impose a fine or impose a fine as well as imprison him

II. INJUSTICE the words cannot be understood properly without the context in which it is
used. The strict adherence to this principle may cause injustice and sometimes it might give
results which are quite contrary to general intention of the statute or common sense.

III. INCOMPLETENESS It means that there is some lacuna or omission in the statute which
prevents it from giving complete idea, or it is logically incomplete. In such cases it is the duty of
the court to make up the defect by adding or altering something, but the court is not allowed to

12
Ashutosh Thaker, The process of interpretation of law and the judge
Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10603/130519.

5
do more than that. It is permissible only in cases where the statutes are inapplicable in their
present form, which is incomplete. For the change, either alteration or addition the court looks
into the matters which will probably help it in ascertaining the intention of the legislature. It is
not necessary that judges would always find some or the other means to help them in cases of
defective texts.13

IV. ABSURDITY Sometime the court might mean ascertain the certain meaning to the statute
which was never the intention of legislature.

V. RESTRICTION ON COURTS The traditional rule of literal interpretation forbids the court
to attach any meaning other than the ordinary one. It closes the doors for any type of judicial
innovation.14

VI. NOT SUITABLE FOR CHANGING TIMES with a change in policies and legislation,
the statutes cannot still be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words
made long ago. Since the rule is to stick to the exact words of the statute few lawmen say that it
is like imposing a rule even when you know that it is not right.

If the court applies literal rule and feels that the interpretation is morally wrong then they cannot
avoid giving the interpretation. Some criticize this rule by saying that the rule emphasis on the
erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. In fact, words are imprecise, leading
justices to impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute.15

APPRAISAL OF PRINCIPLE

It may be paradoxical that plain meaning rule is not plain and requires no construction, starts
with a premise that the words are plain, which is itself a conclusion reached after constructing
the words. The rule, that plain words require no construction, starts with the premise that the
words are plain, which is itself a conclusion reached after construing the words. It is not possible
to decide whether certain words are plain or ambiguous unless they are studied in their context
and construed.16
13
Supra 11.
14
Ashutosh Thaker, The process of interpretation of law and the judge
Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10603/130519.
15
Ibid.
16
V.P, Sarathi.,Interpretation of Statutes Eastern book company, Lucknow,5th Edition 2010.

6
The rule therefore, in reality means that after you have construed the words and have come to the
conclusion that they can bear only one meaning, your duty is to give effect to that meaning. For a
proper application of the rule to a given statute, it is necessary, therefore, to determine first
whether the language used is plain or ambiguous. As pointed out by Lord Buckmaster, “by any
‘ambiguity’ is meant a phrase fairly and equally open to diverse meanings.17

5. CASE LAWS ON LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

1. In the case of Dominion of India &Anr. vs. Shrinbai A. Irani &Anr 18.the apex court held
that the provisions cited are to be held literally and ought to be given their simple and
grammatical meaning. It has to be interpreted in the mild of the preamble of the ordnance.

2. In the case of Municipal Board, Pushkar vs. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan19 it
was held through the apex court that it shall be the duty of the to interpret the regulation as it is/
as it exists and an undeniable and grammatical which means shall be given even if it affects too
harsh conclusion.

3. In the case of Jugal kishore Saraf vs. Raw Cotton Company Limited 20 that the statutes are
to examine actually via giving them their ordinary, grammatical, and natural meaning. If such
regular meaning affords absurdity then the Golden rule is possibly utilized however when no
such choice construction is viable literal interpretation shall be applied.

4. In the case of State Of Kerala vs. Mathal Verghese&Ors.21 The issue regarding currency
notes was observed. The Kerala High Court held that because IPC is being considered in this
case only Indian currency and banknotes shall be considered. But Supreme Court went with the
literal interpretation as section 498-A of IPC mentions “any currency” therefore even foreign
currency and banknotes shall be considered.

5 Ram Avtar v Assistant Sales Tax Officer 22: Under the Central Province and Berar Sales Tax
Act, vegetables were tax-free. Ram Avtar contented that pan leaf is also covered under the

17
Supra 13.
18
The Dominion of India &Anr. vs. Shrinbai A. Irani &Anr., 1954 AIR 596, 1955 SCR 206
19
Municipal Board, Pushkar vs. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, 1965 AIR 458, 1963 SCR (2) 273
20
Jugalkishore Saraf vs. Raw Cotton Company Limited, 1955 AIR 376, 1955 SCR (1)1369.
21
State Of Kerala vs. MathalVerghese&Ors., 1987 AIR 33, 1987 SCR (1) 317.
22
Ram Avtar v Assistant Sales Tax Officer 1961 AIR 1325

7
purview of vegetable according to its dictionary meaning and hence should be tax-free.
However, the court said that the dictionary meaning shall be referred to only when there is
ambiguity in the provision and there wasn’t any ambiguity, hence the court rejected his plea.

6.. CBI Bank Securities & Fraud Cell v Ramesh Gelli & Ors 23 : In this case, the Supreme
Court held that a managing director or chairman of a private bank will come under the purview
of “public officer”.

7. Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay 24: In this case Maqbool, an Indian citizen, upon
returning from an international trip brought some gold with him. According to the Sea Customs
Act, no Indian citizen was allowed to bring any valuables such as gold and hence, his gold was
confiscated. He was then prosecuted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
Maqbool contended that since the gold had already been confiscated, and that was a trial in itself.
He cannot be prosecuted under FERA, 1947 as it would amount to double jeopardy. However,
the Supreme Court held that confiscation of gold cannot be termed as prosecution and hence it
was not a case of double jeopardy according to the strict and literal interpretation of Article
20(2).

Balancing Legal Certainty and Legislative Intent

The literal rule of statutory interpretation seeks to provide legal certainty by giving effect to the
ordinary meaning of the words in a statute, without considering their purpose or context.
However, this approach may have potential limitations in capturing legislative intent. For
example, words can have different meanings in different contexts or may be ambiguous, leading
to confusion in interpretation. In some cases, the literal rule may give rise to unjust or unintended
outcomes that are not aligned with the legislative intent.25

Balancing legal certainty and legislative intent in statutory construction is challenging due to the
need for clear, predictable laws. Legislative intent refers to the legislature’s purpose or
objective.26
23
Central Bureau of Investigation Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v Ramesh Gelli & Ors AIR 2016.
24
Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325.
25
Ashutosh Thaker, The process of interpretation of law and the judge
Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10603/130519.
26
Ahinav Palsikar, Critical Analysis of Literal Rule of Interpretation, ssrn, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=3720368.

8
Literal rules contribute to legal certainty but may lead to ambiguity. Alternative approaches
include purposive or contextual interpretation. Legislative intent and legal certainty must be
balanced, which is a difficult challenge in statutory construction. Alternative approaches, such as
the purposive approach and contextual interpretation, can better capture legislative purpose but
do have their own limitations even though the literal rule provides some degree of legal certainty.
The key is to strike a balance between legal certainty and capturing legislative intent through
careful analysis and interpretation of the statute in its entirety.27

6. THE DIFFRENCE BETWEENV THREE RULES OF

INTERPRETATION

The difference between the above is the generally the courts are abound to take the literal rule
approach to the legislation, but it is possible to do so to depart from this approach, where
significant reason why they should, where they can use the Golden Approach and Mischief rule.
Overall the difference is that the literal approach is the interpretation of legislation applies the
general rule that a court is bound by the words within the statute, but as where the two others are
concerned they are the Golden Rule approach comes in when the Judge reluctant to use this
approach by using phrases of the interpretation and where the Mischief approach is where the
courts use words and phrases are ambiguous or are uncertain for some other reasons, this rule
come in where there is uncertainty in a case.28

When comparing the three rules there are differences and similarities. The Literal Rule is the
basis of all cases. By providing no scope for the judges input, it upholds the separation of powers
and respects parliamentary supremacy. However, its inflexibility can also create injustices.

The Golden Rule tries to compliment the Literal Rule by allowing judges to change the meaning
of statutes in order to give justice. However, this infringes the separation of powers.

The Mischief Rule gives the most discretion to judges and is suited to specific, often ambiguous
cases. The rule allows statutes to be refined and developed. However, the increased role of the
judge means that his views and prejudices can influence the final decision.29
27
Supra 22.
28
Gurjar, E., Literal Rule: A Tool for Statutory Interpretation. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2002873.
29
Critical analysis of the literal golden and mischief rule available at :
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law

9
7. CONCLUSION

The primary rule is the literal rule of interpretation. Courts view statutes in a literal and ordinary
way under this law of interpretation. They apply a universal interpretation of the statute’s terms.
The court is required to use the grammatical sense. The statutes should be interpreted as though
there were no other interpretation than the literal meaning. It’s an age-old and well-established
law of interpretation. It is used not only in England, but also in India, where it originated. This
rule is helpful in cases where there is no ambiguity.

8. SUGGESTION

Courts must keep a few things in mind when interpreting statutes. It must understand that a
clause is only vague if it includes a word or expression that has several meanings. It is unclear if
the interpretation is susceptible to different interpretations in one context, but it is plain if it is
susceptible to different meanings in different contexts. Literal rule of interpretation is the
primary rule of interpretation under which courts interpret statutes and provisions in the literal
and ordinary sense without adding any meaning to them and without modifying them.

Unless the words are without meaning or absurd, it would be safe to give words their natural
meaning because the framer is presumed to use the language which conveys the intention and it
would not be in accord with any sound principle of construction to refuse to give effect to the
provisions of a statute on the very elusive ground that to give them their ordinary meaning leads
to consequences which are not in accord with the notions of propriety or justice entertained by
the Court.30

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

FROM BAREACT:

 Constitution of India 1950, Lexis Nexis,Haryana ,2021.

FROM BOOKS:

 Sarathi, V.P.,Interpretation of Statutes Eastern book company, Lucknow,5th Edition 2010.

FROM WEBSITE:
30
State of Rajasthan v. Mrs. Leela Jain AIR 1965 SC 1296.

10
 Amisha, Literal rule of interpretation available at,
https://lexforti.com/legal-news/explained-literal-rule-of-interpretation.
 Ahinav Palsikar, Critical Analysis of Literal Rule of Interpretation, ssrn,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3720368.
 Critical analysis of the literal golden and mischief rule available at
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law.
 Gayatri.M,A critical analysis on the literal rule of statutory interpretation available at
https://journal.indianlegalsolution.com.
 Gurjar, E., Literal Rule: A Tool for Statutory Interpretation. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2002873
 Kapoor,Nisita, All about Interpretation of statute available at
https://www.latestlaws.com/articles..
 Thaker Ashutosh, The process of interpretation of law and the judge
 Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10603/130519.. Contemporary Statutory
Interpretation. Statutes in Court, pp.151–155. Available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822398202-007.

11