The term Interpretation has been derived from the Latin term interpretari which means to explain

or understand. Every statute has to be interpreted by the judge the way it is meant to be understood.

The purpose of interpretation is always to find out what the statute stands for, what is the defect it
intends to remove and what is the remedy it seeks to advance[1]. The basic principle of the
construction of statutes is that, the words have to be read and understood in their true literal sense.
The Literal Rule is the first rule applied by the judges. The literal rule is also called grammatical
rule by some jurists.

The literal rule means that a judge has to consider what the statute says ‘literally’, i.e its simple plain
meaning without any ambiguity. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the
law- givers[2].

The interpretation or construction means the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the intent
of the Legislature through the medium of the authoritative form in which it is expressed[3]. In the
literal rule of interpretation, the law has to be considered as it is and the judges cannot go beyond
‘litera legis’. The literal interpretation is a means to ascertain the ’ratio legis’ of the statute.

In the literal rule, the intention of the parliament while framing the statute, is the ordinary meaning of
the words used. Justice Jervis, has described the meaning of literal rule in Abley v Gale[4]. Lord
Diplock observed in Duport Steel Ltd v Sirs[5] that:
Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then for the judges to
invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they
consider the consequences for doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.

The words of a statute are to be first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and
phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to
some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest
the contrary[6].

No judge can deviate from the meaning of the statute though decision maybe unjust. The words of a
statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning[7].

The literal rule accepts supremacy of the Parliament: the right to make laws, even though
sometimes, they seem absurd. In the literal rule of interpretation, there is no contrary meaning within
the statute.

Where there is no ambiguity in words, the question of intention ought not to be admitted.[8] The
words are plain and clear under literal rule. The literal rule helps the judge in administering justice in
a neutral manner.

When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous it is not necessary to look into the
legislative intent or object of the Act[9]. The literal rule puts a virtual boundary upon the judges from
not deviating from the ordinary or literal meaning of the words used in the statute.

When the language of the statute is uncertain or ambiguous on then the judge have the duty to
interpret. The literal rule appreciates precision and certainty which help the reduction of litigation.
The judges have to act upon the true intention of the legislature. The judges have no liberty to
modify the law even if they feel that the true intention of the legislature have not been expressed
rightly in the law.

Though literal interpretation must be accepted, it should not be followed if the statute is defective.

The advantages of the literal rule:

1. The literal rule enables the common man to understand the statue.
2. The intent of the legislature is simple and clear.
3. The literal rule respects the parliamentary supremacy in administration of justice.
4. Under literal rule the law is quite predictable.

The dis-advantages of the literal rule:

1. The literal rule can lead to unreasonable decision making.
2. The English language is ambiguous.
3. The application of literal meaning in all situations and circumstances is not possible.
4. The rule expects standards of unattainable perfection from the parliamentary draftsman.

The rules to be followed in literal rule of interpretation of statutes:

Ejusdem Generis:
Ejusdem Generis is where general words follow anenumeration of persons or things, by words of a
particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent,
but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those
specifically mentioned[10]. Ejusdem Generis means assuming general meaning of words or words
similar kind.

Casus Omissus:
Casus Omissus means cases omitted. Casus omissus also means a point not provided by the
statute. It is basically a situation not provided for by a statute or contract and therefore governed by
case-law or new-judge made law[11]. It is a canon of construction, requiring the court to draw up
principles of statutory construction, which are then going to be followed by subsequent judges in
their judicial decisions[12].

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius:

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius means that one thing having been mentioned the other is
excluded. Lopes, L.J opines this maxim means a valuable servant but a dangerous master[13].
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, it is a maxim for ascertaining the intention of the legislature.
Where the statutory language is plain and the meaning clear, there is no scope for applying the
rule[14].

Criticisms of literal rule of interpretation of statutes:

Literal rule claim that it rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. The
literal rule of interpretation leads to injustice. There are chances of creating misleading precedents
while deciding cases. The courts do not have the power to alter the words of the legislature, it is not
open for judicial innovations. 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 statute or common sense[15]. Due to the absurdity that is
prevalent in literal rule of interpretation, the court may ascertain a literal meaning which was not
intended by the legislature. If the court applies literal rule and feels that the interpretation is morally
wrong then they cannot avoid giving the interpretation[16].

With changing and adopting of new policies and legislature, the statutes cannot be interpreted in
their traditional way i.e, taking the literal meaning of the words used. Hence these make literal rule
not suitable to present situation.

Case Laws

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, In this case, the appellant, a citizen

of India after arriving at the airport did not declare that he was carrying gold
with him. During his search was carried on, gold was found in his possession as
it was against the notification of the government and was confiscated
under section 167(8) of Sea Customs Act.

Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulations Act, 1947. The appellant challenged this trial to be violative
under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution. According to this article, no
person shall be punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offence.
This is considered as double jeopardy.

It was held by the court that the Seas Act neither a court nor any judicial
tribunal. Thus, accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was
held to be valid.
Manmohan Das versus Bishan Das, AIR 1967 SC 643

The issue in the case was regarding the interpretation of section 3(1)(c) of U.P
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. In this case, a tenant was liable for
evidence if he has made addition and alternate in the building without proper
authority and unauthorized perception as materially altered the accommodation
or is likely to diminish its value. The appellant stated that only the constitution
can be covered, which diminishes the value of the property and the word „or‟
should be read as land.

It was held that as per the rule of literal interpretation, the word „or‟ should be
given the meaning that a prudent man understands the grounds of the event
are alternative and not combined.

State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others, 1987 AIR 33 SCR(1)

317, in this case a person was caught along with the counterfeit currency
“dollars” and he was charged under section 120B, 498A, 498C and 420 read
with section 511 and 34 of Indian Penal Code for possessing counterfeit
currency. The accused contended before the court that a charge under section
498A and 498B of Indian Penal Code can only be levied in the case of
counterfeiting of Indian currency notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of
foreign currency notes. The court held that the word currency notes or bank
note cannot be prefixed. The person was held liable to be charge-sheeted.