Explain the ‘Literal or Grammatical Rule of Interpretation’ with case laws.

LITERAL INTERPRETATION (LITERA LEGIS):

In construing Statutes, the cardinal rule is to construe its provisions literally and grammatically giving the words
their ordinary and natural meaning. This rule is also known as the Plain meaning rule. The first and foremost step
in the course of interpretation is to examine the language and the literal meaning of the statute. The words in an
enactment have their own natural effect and the construction of an act depends on its wording. There should be
no additions or substitution of words in the construction of statutes and in its interpretation. The primary rule is
to interpret words as they are. It should be taken into note that the rule can be applied only when the meanings
of the words are clear i.e. words should be simple so that the language is plain and only one meaning can be
derived out of the statute. Giving the words the ordinary and natural meaning is called the literal interpretation.

A Judge is not expected to modify the language of an Act, with a view to bring an Act in accordance with
his own ideas or views. When the words are clear and unambiguous, the Courts should confine to the meanings
of the words contained in them and not more than that. Thus, it is said that the bare words of the Act must be
construed to get the meaning of the statute, and we cannot find out the intention of the legislature and cannot
aid the defective phrasing of the Act by adding or mending the Act and make up the deficiency.

The elementary rule of construction is that the language must be construed in its grammatical and literal
sense. It is called litera legis or litera scripta. When the phrase of a statute is clear and unambiguous and can be
interpreted in one way, the Courts should not interpret the statute in any other manner with a view to carryout
the intention of the legislature. In such a situation, the statute must be interpreted in its plain grammatical
meaning.

The court must interpret a statute's words to their ordinary meaning, unless the statute is clear. If the
legislature's intention is unclear, other rules of construction are considered. The court should examine the
context to determine the true intention of the legislature. If plain meaning leads to ambiguity or defects,
construction is sought to give effect to the legislature's intention. The view that gives life to the legislature is
preferred over the one that frustrates it.

Meaning

To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include “definitions” sections within a statute, which explicitly define the
most important terms used in that statute. But some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or (more
commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation
that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition
itself. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been
different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law
means.

The literal rule may be understood subject to the following conditions –

• Statute may itself provide a special meaning for a term, which is usually to be found in the interpretation
section.
• Technical words are given ordinary technical meaning if the statute has not specified any other.
• Words will not be inserted by implication.
• Words undergo shifts in meaning in course of time.
• It should always be remembered that words acquire significance from their context.

The rule of literal construction in statutes requires words to be understood in their natural, ordinary, or popular
sense, depending on their context and subject matter. The terms "natural," "ordinary," "literal," "grammatical,"
and "popular" are used interchangeably to convey the same idea. To determine a word's meaning, the legislature
must first determine its natural and ordinary meaning in its context. If the meaning indicates a result that cannot
be opposed, the legislature must seek another meaning that conveys the true intention. In the Pritipal Singh v.
Union of India case, the presumption is that words are used correctly and exactly in an Act of Parliament.

Essential features of Literal Interpretation:

a. If there is a strong justifiable reason to infer that something has been omitted in a statute, then only
something should be added to the statute to fill up the gaps during interpretation. Words which are not there
should not be provided.

b. No part of the language of the statute should be left with out effect, and if any interpretation leaves any part
of the Act ineffective, then it is rejected. Construction should be such that it takes into account all the parts
together and not a part of it.

Limits of Literal Interpretation:

a. Meanings for general terms are specified in the General Clauses Act 1897, and they should be accepted as the
true meaning unless the contrary intention is specified in the statute.

b. If the statute does not mention anything, technical words should be understood in the ordinary meaning

c. With change of time, the meaning of certain words also undergoes change. The intention of the framers in
giving meaning to words at the time of framing the statute should be considered.

d. The meaning of the words varies according to the context.

Rationale for this Rule : Proponents of the plain meaning rule 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. In probate law the rule is also favored because the testator is typically not around to
indicate what interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore, it is argued, 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.

Exceptions to the general rule of grammatical or literal interpretation or Rules of logical interpretation:

Generally, a statute must be interpreted in its grammatical sense, but there are four circumstances where it is
not possible.In some cases, the wordings of the statute are logically defective and do not give a correct idea and
there is lack of coherence.

a. Ambiguity: Here, a statute sometimes gives more than one meaning, and in such a case, the true meaning of
the words is fixed from the context.
b. Inconsistency: Sometimes, the different parts of the statute are repugnant to each other and destroy each
other's meaning. In such a case, the Courts should find out the true significance of the statute.

c. Incompleteness or lacunae: There may be some lacunae in the statute which gives an incomplete meaning to
the statute. Such omissions may be lawfully supplied by logical interpretation, by the Courts.

d. Unreasonableness: Sometimes, the matter is so unreasonable that it is clear that the legislature could not
have meant what is said. In the above circumstances, 'Sententia legis' or logical interpretation is sought.

Criticism of this rule : Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests 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. However, since little else is offered as an alternative
discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives.
This is the oldest of the rules of construction and is still used today, primarily because judges may not legislate.
As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges
prefer to adhere to the law’s literal wording.

RELEVANT CASES
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors.(2013)

Issue: The Hon'ble Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered whether a police officer is required
to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving information about a cognizable offense under section
154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or if they can conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of
such information before registering it. The issue was primarily concerned with the interpretation of section 154 of
the CrPC.

Observations and Holdings: The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed."...the first and foremost principle of
interpretation of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation.

All that we have to see at the very outset is what does the provision say? As a result, the language employed in
section 154 is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. A plain reading of section 154(1) of the Code
provides that any information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence il given orally to an officerin
charge of a police station shall be reduced into writing by him or under his direction. There is no ambiguity in the
language of section 154(1) of the Code." (Para 36)

"The language of section 154(1), therefore, admits of no other construction but the literal construction." (Para
37)

"The use of the word "shall" in section 154(1) of the Code clearly shows the legislative intent that it is mandatory
to register an FIR if the information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizabie offence." (Para
40)

Municipal Board Vs. State Transport Authority Rajasthan: (1965) An application against the change of location
of a bus stand could be made within 30 days of receipt of the order of the Regional Transport Authority
according to Sec. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. In this case, an application towards the State Transport
authority was moved after 30 days on the contention that the statute read as 30 days from the knowledge of the
order of the Regional Transport Authority.
The Supreme Court held that the literal interpretation or clear grammatical interpretation should be made in this
circumstance and when the language is clear and unambiguous, literal meaning should be given to it irrespective
of the consequences. Statutes regarding limitation should not be interpreted with equitable consideration but
only grammatically.

In A. Madan Mohan Vs. K.Chandrasekhara (1984): It was held that when a statute contains strict and stringent
provision, it must be literally and strictly construed to promote the object of the Act, and not to defeat the object
of the Act.

Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devi (AIR 2002 SC 3240): It was held that if the plain meaning of the language of
statutes gives rise to anomalies, injustices and absurdities, then the Court should look for the purpose of the
statute and try to give a meaning which shall Serve the purpose of the Act.

Sometimes, though the intention of the legislature is clear, the words in the statute introduced by the draftsman
gives rise to apparent ineffectiveness of the language. In such cases, the Court should reject the unnecessary
words to make the statute effective.

Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Put. Ltd (2002 AIR SCW 4939): In this case, it was decided that
generally, according to the fundamental principle of construction, the statute should be read as a whole, then
chapter by chapter, Section by Section and word by word.

Statutes should be construed according to the plain meaning and words should not be added, altered or
modifies, unless it prevents a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or if it is not
reconcilable with the rest of the statute. A legislation must be given a liberal construction to fulfill the purpose
and not to frustrate it.

Raghunandan Saran Vs. M/S Pearey Lal Worshop Put Ltd. (1986 ): In this case, the Supreme Court validated Sec.
14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and provided the benefit of non eviction on account of non payment of
rent, though they had obtained a similar benefit under Sec. 13 (2) of the earlier Delhi Rent Control Act 1952. In
this case, the Supreme Court adopted the grammatical interpretation and held that where the words of the
statute are clear, there is no question of interpretation.