PRIMARY RULES

1. LITERAL RULE:
MEANING:
It is also known as Grammatical or Primary or Natural Interpretation. The rule of literal construction is
considered to be the first principle of interpretation. According to this rule, the words of the enactment
are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning, and if such meaning is clear and unambiguous,
effect should be given to a provision of a statute whatever may be the consequences. Where wordings
of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, rule of literal construction to be applied and recourse
to other principles of interpretation is not required. Only when literal construction results in some
absurdity or anomaly, other principles of interpretation may be applied.
Literal construction giving rise to absurd situation should be avoided. Where it is possible that two
parallel proceedings may continue at the same time and two tribunals may render contradictory
decisions on the same question, it was held that such construction should be avoided. The rule of literal
construction is applicable to both private and public law.
This rule can be understood under the following headings:
a) Natural and Grammatical Meaning- While applying the principle of grammatical construction, the
words in a statute are to be understood first in their ordinary, natural and popular sense. If it involves
any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must be modified, extended or
abridged only to avoid such an inconvenience. Where the words are clear and there is no ambiguity and
the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take
upon the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. Here the judges should not proclaim
that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. While
interpreting a provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is
misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal
it, if deemed necessary.
In Municipal Board vs State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, The Regional Transport authority changed
the location of a bus stand. If anyone wanted to move an application against this order, he could do so
within thirty days from the date of order to the Regional Transport Authority under S.64-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1939. But in this case, the application was moved to the state transport authority after the
expiry of the thirty days from the date of the order. Here it was argued that an application could be
moved within thirty days from the knowledge the order passed by the regional transport authority. The
Supreme Court held that whenever the languages of a statute is plain and unambiguous, meaning
should be given to it irrespective of the consequences and while interpreting statutes of limitation,
equitable considerations are out of place and clear grammatical meaning of the enactment should stand.
In Ramavatar vs Asst. Sales Tax Officer, the question before the court was whether the sale of the betel
leaves was subject to sales tax. The contention given by the appellant was that betel leaves being
vegetables were not subject to sales tax. The appellant relied on the dictionary meaning of vegetable
which says that a vegetable is that which is pertaining to, comprised or consisting or derived or
obtained from plant or their parts. The Supreme Court rejected their contention and held betel leaves
could not be given the dictionary or botanical meaning when the ordinary meaning and natural meaning
is clear and unambiguous.
b) Explanation of the rule-When it is said that words are to be understood first in their natural,
ordinary or popular sense, it is meant that the words must be ascribed that natural or ordinary meaning
which they have in relation to the subject matter with reference to which and the context in which they
have been used in that statute. In determining the meaning of any word or phrase in a statute the first
question to be asked is -what is the natural and ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in
the statute? But when that natural or ordinary meaning indicates such result which cannot be opposed
to have been the intention of the legislature, then we have to look for some other possible meaning of
the word or phrase which may then convey the true intention of the legislature.
In Motipur Zamindary Co Ltd vs State of Bihar, the question arose whether the sugarcane fell within
the term green vegetables in Entry 6 of the Schedule of Bihar Sales Tax Act 1947 for purpose of sales
tax. The SC held that while dealing with a taxing statute the natural meaning of a word should be
correct meaning. The word green vegetables in its popular sense includes vegetables that can be grown
in the kitchen garden and can be used for eating during lunch or dinner. Therefore, sugarcane does not
fall under this category.
In Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs Collector of Central Excise it was held that 'toilet soap' was a Household
Soap and not soap of other sorts in Schedule 1 of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. If anyone goes
to market and asks for toilet soap he must ask only for household bathing purpose and not for industrial
or other sorts. Even the people dealing with it would supply it for household purpose.
c) Exact Meaning preferred to loose meaning- The third important point regarding the rule of literal
construction is that exact meaning is preferred to loose meaning in an Act of Parliament. In Prithipal
Singh vs Union of India it was held that there is a presumption that the words are used in an Act of
Parliament correctly and exactly and not loosely and inexactly. Every word has a secondary meaning
too. Therefore, in applying the above rule one should be careful not to mix up the secondary meaning
with the loose meaning. Loose meaning should not defeat the secondary meaning of a word. Wherever
the secondary meaning points to that meaning which statute meant, preference should be given to that
secondary meaning.
d) Technical words in technical sense- It is the fourth important point regarding the rule of literal
construction. It states that, technical words are understood in the technical sense only. Words used in a
statute may be ordinary or technical words. The ordinary words convey ordinary meaning and technical
words designed to some trade or profession which conveys technical meaning. Lord Esher has stated
that if the Act is one passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are
used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows and understands to
have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning.
In Union of India vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd, the question was of excise duty on 'refined
oil'. It was held that purification of raw oil in the process of manufacture of vanaspati where
deodorization is done after hydrogenation does not at any stage transform the oil into refined oil as
known to the consumers and commercial community because in commercial world oil is always
deodorized before it is marketed as refined oil. Here SC considered the evidence of manufacturers of
refined oil and the specification of refined oil by the Indian Standards Institution.
ADVANTAGES:
a) When the rule of literal interpretation is applied, there is no scope for the judges to express their own
opinion pre judices to interfere.
b) The rule of literal interpretation respects sovereignty of parliament and upholds separation of
powers.
c) The rule of literal interpretation encourages precise drafting, promotes certainty and reduces
litigation.
DISADVANTAGES:
a) Application of this rules sometimes leads to absurdities and loopholes, giving scope to litigants to
exploit the situation.
b) Placing emphasis on the literal meaning of words assume an unobtainable perfection in
draftsmanship.
c) The rule of literal construction ignores the limitations of language.
2. GOLDEN RULE:
MEANING:
The Golden Rule of Interpretation is the modification of the Literal rule of interpretation. It is also
known as 'British Rule as it was originated in England in 1854. The literal rule emphasizes on the
literal meaning of legal words used in the legal context which may often lead to ambiguity and
absurdity. The Golden rule tries to avoid anomalous and absurd consequences arising from literal
interpretation. In view of the same, the literal meaning of such words is usually modified. The court is
usually interested in delivering justice and in order to foresee the consequences of their decisions the
golden rule is usually applied. This rule of interpretation aims at giving effect to the spirit of the law as
the mere mechanical and grammatical meaning may not be sufficient.
DEFINITION:
• According to Viscount Simon L.C, “The Golden rule is that, the words of statute must prima
facie be given their ordinary meaning”.
• Banerjee in his Interpretation of Deeds, Wills and Statutes in British India says, “Golden rule
has been universally accepted as a correct enunciation of the law. In laying down that, the
ordinary and grammatical sense of the words must be adhered to in the first instance. Most
words have a primary meaning that is a meaning in which they are generally used and a
secondary meaning that is they are used in a particular context”.
APPLICATION OF GOLDEN RULES:
Golden rules gives the words in a statute, their plain and ordinary meaning. If it leads to irrational result
that is unlikely to be the legislature's intention, the golden rule dictates that a judge can depart from this
meaning. Where a word conveys more than one meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning
of his choice. If a word conveys only one meaning and application of the same leads to bad decision,
then the judge can apply that word completely different meaning.
The Golden rule of interpretation is applied in two ways that is narrower and wider sense. The rule is
applied more frequently in narrower sense, where there is some ambiguity or absurdity in the words
themselves in the statute. Secondly, the golden rule is applied in the wider sense, to avoid obnoxious
result to the principles of public policy, even where the words in a statute have only one meaning.
CASE LAWS:
1. Alder v George- The rule of golden interpretation was used in this case. Under S.3 of the Official
Secrets Acts 1920, it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the vicinity of the prohibited place. Mr.
Frank Adler had in fact been arrested whilst obstructing such forces within such a prohibited place. He
argued that he was not in the vicinity of a prohibited place as he was actually in a prohibited place. The
court applied the golden rule to extend the literal wording of the statute to cover the action committed
by the defendant. If the literal rule had been applied, it would have produced absurdity, as someone
protesting near the base would be committing an offence whilst someone protesting in it would not.
2. Re Sigsworth- Here a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the
Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next kin, that is, her son. There
was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had
murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not be applied and
that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.
3. R vs Allen- In this case the defendant was charged with bigamy (S.57 of Offences against the Person
Act 1861) which states: “Whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of
the former husband or wife is guilty of offence”.
Under the literal rule, bigamy would be impossible because civil courts do not recognize second
marriages, so the Golden rule was applied to determine the word 'marry' should be seen as 'to go
through ceremony' and the conviction was upheld.
4. Royal College of Nursing vs DHSS- Here the RCN challenged the involvement of nurses in
abortion. Under the Offences against the Person Act it is an offence for anyone to carry out an abortion.
However, the Abortion Act, 1967 claims an absolute defence for medically registered practitioners to
carry out the abortions.
5. Golaknath vs State of Punjab- In this case, the Supreme Court applied the golden rule of
interpretation and held that the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution abridging the provisions
under Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution.
ADVANTAGES:
1. It respects the words of the Parliament except in limited situations; the golden rule provides an
escape route where there is a problem with using literal meaning.
2. It allows judge to choose the most sensible meaning where there is more than one meaning to the
words in the statute.
3. It can also provide reasonable decisions in cases where the literal rule would lead to repugnant
situations.
4. The drafting errors in statutes can be corrected immediately.
DISADVANTAGES:
1. There are no real guidelines as to when it can be used.
2. What seems to be absurd to one judge may not be to another- this means a cases outcome is decided
upon the judge rather than the law.
3. Its not possible to predict when courts will use the golden rule, making it hard for lawyers and
people who are advising their clients.

3. MISCHIEF RULE
MEANING:
The rule laid down in Heydon's Case which has now attained the status of a classic known as Mischief
Rule. The rule enables consideration of four matters construing an Act:
1) What was the law before the making of the Act
2) What was the defect for which the law did not provide
3) What is the remedy that the Act has provided
4) What is the reason of the remedy
The rule directs the courts must adopt that construction which shall suppress the mischief and advance
the remedy. When statute provides relief against certain mischief, court should not deny such relief.
APPLICATION OF RULE:
Mischief Rule applicable there where language is capable of more than one meaning. When the
question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a statute it is proper to read that provision in
its context. The context means the statute as a whole, the previous state of law, other statutes in pari
materia, the general scope of the statute and the mischief that it was intended to remedy. It is the duty
of the court to make such construction of a statute which shall suppress the mischief and advance the
remedy.
CASE LAWS:
1. Bengal Immunity Co's Case- The Supreme court applied mischief rule while construing Article 286.
After referring to the state of law prevailing in the provinces prior to the constitution as also to the
chaos and confusion brought about in inter-state trade and commerce by indiscriminate exercise of
taxing powers by the different provincial legislatures founded as the theory of territorial nexus, SR Das
CJ, stated, 'It was to cure this mischief of multiple taxation and to preserve the free-flow of inter-state
trade and commerce in the Union of India regarded as one economic unit without any provincial barrier
that the Constitution-makers adopted the Article 286 in the Constitution'.
2. RMD Chamarbaugwalla vs Union of India- Mischief Rule was applied in the construction of S.2(d)
of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955. This section defines 'prize competition' as meaning any
competition in which prizes are offered for the solution of any puzzle based upon the building up
arrangement, combination or permutation of letters, words or figures. The question was whether the
Act applies to competitions which involve substantial skill and are not in the nature of gambling. The
Supreme Court held that having regard to the history of the legislation, the declared object thereof, and
the wording of the statute, we are of opinion that the competitions which are sought to be controlled
and regulated by the Act are only those competitions in which success does not depend on any
substantial degree of skill.
3. Glaxo Laboratories vs Presiding Officer- The SC observed that the purpose of interpretation is to
give effect to the intention underlying the statute, and therefore, unless the grammatical construction
leads to absurdity, it has to be given effect to. If two constructions are possible, that construction which
advances the intention of the legislation and remedies the mischief should be accepted. In this case, it
was held that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was enacted for ameliorating the
conditions of the workers. Therefore, conditions of service prescribed thereunder must receive such
interpretation which advances the intendment underlying the Act and defeat the mischief.
4. Badshah vs Sou. Urmilla Badshah Godse- the SC held that while interpreting a statute the court may
not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted but also the mischief it
seeks to suppress. It was held that while entertaining an application of destitute wife or hapless children
or parents under S.125 of CrPC, the court is dealing with marginalized sections of the society. The
purpose is to achieve 'social justice'.
ADVANTAGES:
1. The Mischief Rule vanishes loopholes in law and helps statutes to develop.
2. It confers on judges discretionary power to judge as to when the rule is suited to specific and
ambiguous cases.
3. It allows the statutes to be refined and developed.
4. It upholds the rule of separation of powers and sovereignty of the state.
5. It avoids unjust or absurd results in sentencing.
DISADVANTAGES:
1. Mischief rule is too old. It has been in use since 16th Century. In those days common law was the
main source of law and parliamentary supremacy was not established at that time.
2. It confers complete discretionary power on judges, who are unelected, which is argued to be
undemocratic.
3. The mischief rule of interpretation results in uncertainty of law.
4. Complete discretionary power on judges leads to adverse opinions of judges and infringement on the
separation of powers.