Contents

CERTIFICATE .................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4

Literal or Grammatical Rule of Interpretation ................... 6

Historical Foundations of the Literal Rule ........................... 7

Principles Underpinning the Literal Rule Plain

Meaning ................................................................................................................................... 8

Rationale and Criticism of Grammatical Rule .......................... 10

Rationale for this rule: ......................................................................................... 10

Criticism of this Rule: ............................................................10

Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P (2005) ........12

Conclusion.......................................................................................15

Reference ........................................................................................16 1
Page
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Anurag Mishra, student of BA LLB,
semester 8th of SURENDRANATH LAW COLLEGE has
sucessfully completed the project on, “TATA Consultancy
Services vs State of Andhra Pradesh- Interpreted with
literal rule” prescribed by Prof Sudeshna Mukherjee
Poddar during the academic session 2019-2024 as per
the guidelines issued by the Calcutty University.

2
Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to
my teacher (Prof. Sudeshna Mukherjee Poddar) who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project
on this topic, which also helped me in doing a lot of
Research and I came to know about so many things.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and
friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time frame. I am grateful to the college
administration for providing me with such a significant
chance. I believe I will participate in more such activities
in the future. I guarantee that this project was created
entirely by me and is not a forgery. Finally, I’d like to
express my gratitude to my parents and friends for their
excellent comments and guidance during the completion
of this project.

3
Page
 INTRODUCTION
The term has been derived from the Latin term
‘interpretari’, which means to explain, expound,
understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process
of explaining, expounding and translating any text or
anything in written form. This basically involves an act of
discovering the true meaning of the language which has
been used in the statute. Various sources used are only
limited to explore the written text and clarify what
exactly has been indicated by the words used in the
written text or the statutes. Interpretation of statutes is
the correct understanding of the law. This process is
commonly adopted by the courts for determining the
exact intention of the legislature. Because the objective
of the court is not only merely to read the law but is also
to apply it in a meaningful manner to suit from case to
case. It is also used for ascertaining the actual
connotation of any Act or document with the actual
intention of the legislature. There can be mischief in the
statute which is required to be cured, and this can be
done by applying various norms and theories of
interpretation which might go against the literal meaning
at times. The purpose behind interpretation is to clarify
the meaning of the words used in the statutes which
might not be that clear. According to Salmond,
“Interpretation” is the process by which the court seeks
to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the
medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.
4
Page
In the realm of jurisprudence, the interpretation of laws
and statutes is a critical component of ensuring justice is
served. Among the various methods employed by judges
and legal scholars, the literal rule of interpretation stands
as a fundamental approach. Often referred to as the
"what you see is what you get" approach, the literal rule
posits that the words within a statute should be given
their plain, ordinary, and literal meaning, with no room
for interpretation or inference. In this comprehensive
article, we embark on a journey into the intricacies of the
literal rule of interpretation, delving into its historical
context, underlying principles, advantages, criticisms,
and practical applications.

5
Page
 Literal or Grammatical Rule of Interpretation

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 law making 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. The literal rule of interpretation
is the first rule to this interpretation. According to this rule, the
words used in the text are to be given on interpreted in their
natural or ordinary meaning. If the meaning of a statutory
provision is entirely unambiguous after interpretation, the
provision will be given effect, regardless of the implications. The
basic rule is that the legislature's aim while making a provision
was represented through words, which must be read according to
grammatical standards. It is the most to explore the written
content and clarify the secure rule for interpreting statutes since
the legislature's intention is determined by the words and
language utilised. The court's only responsibility is to give effect
to the statute's plain words, and it does not need to investigate
any potential consequences. The court's only responsibility is to
interpret the law as written, and if any unpleasant consequences
result, the legislature must seek and enforce a remedy. According
to Lord Brougham, it is to take the literal meaning of the words
that the legislature has given them, as well as the meaning that
6
Page

the words naturally imply unless the construction of such terms is

regulated or altered by the preamble or the framework of the
question words.

Historical Foundations of the Literal Rule

The historical foundations of the Literal Rule of interpretation can
be traced back to the development of legal principles and
methodologies in the context of English common law. Here's a
brief overview of its historical evolution:

1. Medieval Common Law: - The roots of the Literal Rule can be

found in the medieval period of English common law, which
began to take shape in the 12th and 13th centuries. - During this
era, the English legal system relied heavily on the "lex scripta," or
written law. Statutes enacted by the King and Parliament became
increasingly significant sources of law.

2. The Statute of Westminster II (1285): - The Literal Rule gained

momentum with the enactment of the Statute of Westminster II
in 1285 during the reign of King Edward I. This statute allowed
for the recovery of damages in civil cases, and it emphasized the
importance of adhering strictly to the words of the statute. - The
Statute of Westminster II explicitly stated that statutes should be
"interpreted according to the tenor of the same statute, so that
no words shall be rejected as superfluous."

3. Formalization of the Literal Rule: - By the 16th century, the

Literal Rule began to be more formally recognized and articulated
in legal practice and scholarship. - Legal scholars and judges
increasingly argued for the primacy of the plain and ordinary
meaning of statutory language, asserting that the words used by
legislators were paramount.
7
Page
4. The Role of Legal Positivism:- The rise of legal positivism
during the Enlightenment period further bolstered the Literal
Rule's prominence. Legal positivism emphasizes that written laws
are the supreme source of legal authority and should be applied
as written. - Philosophers like John Austin, who advocated for the
separation of law from morality, played a role in promoting the
Literal Rule's application.

19th and 20th Century Developments: The Literal Rule

continued to be influential in English legal jurisprudence
throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it was also
during this period that legal scholars and judges began to
recognize its limitations, leading to the development of other
rules of interpretation, such as the Golden Rule and the Mischief
Rule, which allowed for a more flexible approach in cases where
strict adherence to the literal wording led to absurd or unjust
outcomes. The Historical Foundations of the Literal Rule can be
traced back to the evolution of English common law, the
increasing importance of written statutes, and the philosophical
underpinnings of legal positivism. While it played a significant role
in shaping legal interpretation, it has also been subject to
criticism and has led to the development of alternative methods
of statutory interpretation to ensure that justice and the true
legislative intent are upheld in complex legal cases.

Principles Underpinning the Literal Rule Plain Meaning:

At its core, the literal rule insists that the words found in a statute
must be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning. Under this
rule, judges' roles are confined to reading and applying the law
exactly as it is written, without delving into legislative intent or
8

seeking to interpret the law beyond its textual content.

Page
Ambiguity Avoidance: An essential objective of the literal rule is
to minimize ambiguity in the interpretation of laws. By adhering
strictly to the literal words employed in the statute, judges aim to
provide clarity and predictability in legal outcomes.

Judicial Restraint: The literal rule promotes judicial restraint.

Judges are bound to adhere to the statutory language and refrain
from injecting personal biases or opinions into the interpretation
process. Their primary duty is to apply the law as it stands.

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)3 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.”

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. In the case of SPGupta v.
President of India and Ors. 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
9
Page

the intention of the legislature.

3. ExpressioUnius Est ExclusioAlterius: 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.

Rationale and Criticism of Grammatical Rule

Rationale for this rule:

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.

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
10

interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges

Page

prefer to adhere to the law’s literal wording.

In Municipal Board V. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, the
location of a bus stand was changed by the Regional Transport
Authority. An application could be moved within 30 days of
receipt of order of regional transport authority according to
section 64 A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. The application was
moved after 30 days on the contention that statute must be read
as “30 days from the knowledge of the order”. The Supreme
Court held that literal interpretation must be made and hence
rejected the application as invalid.

Lord Atkinson stated, ‘In the construction of statutes their words

must be interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense unless
there be something in the context or in the object of the statute
in which they occur or in the circumstances in which they are
used, to show that they were used in a special sense different
from their ordinary grammatical sense.’

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.
11
Page
Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P (2005)
It was held that a literal construction would not be denied only
because the consequences to comply with the same may lead to
a penalty. The courts should not be overzealous in searching for
ambiguities or obscurities in words which are plain.

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.

R v. Harris (1863) 7C
In this case, the defendant bit the plaintiff’s nose. The statute
made it an offence 'to stab cut or wound' the court held that
under the literal rule the act of biting did not come within the
meaning of stab cut or wound as these words implied an
instrument had to be used. Therefore the defendant was
acquitted.
12
Page
Fisher v. Bell (1961) 1 QB 394
In this case, the defendant displayed flick knife with price tag in
his shop. The statute made it a criminal offence to 'offer' such
flick knives for sale. His conviction was quashed as goods on
display in shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an
invitation to treat. The court applied the literal rule of statutory
interpretation in this case.

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

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
13

accused contended before the court that a charge under section

Page
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.

Motipur Zamindary Company Private Limited v. State of Bihar

In Motipur Zamindary Company Private Limited v. State of Bihar,
the question was whether sugarcane fell within the term green
vegetables in Entry 6 of the Schedule and as such no sales tax
could be levied under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 on its sale.
The Supreme Court held that while dealing with a taxing statute
the natural and ordinary meaning of a word should be the correct
meaning. In the present instance the word vegetables should be
interpreted in its natural and popular sense and that dictionary
meaning is not of such help here. Vegetables as the normal
people mean by it are those which can be grown in a kitchen
garden to be used for the table, that is to say, to be eaten during
lunch or dinner. Sugarcane definitely does not fall under this
category.

14
Page
 Conclusion
Interpretation is regarded to be one of the most vital features of
the court. The purpose why interpretation is performed is to
recognize the real significance of the statute. “Statutes” signifies
guidelines that are enacted by the legislative body/parliament.
The statute till and until is free from ambiguity can't furnish
justice which is additionally the fundamental characteristic of the
court. The term “Ambiguity” means when words provide more
than one meaning. This assignment especially focuses on the
literal rule which means the capability to supply the natural and
ordinary meaning to the statute. In practice, the literal rule of
interpretation is but one tool in the judge's toolkit. Its application
depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the
nature of the statute in question. When statutes are clear and
unambiguous, the literal rule can offer an efficient and fair means
of interpretation. However, when statutes are convoluted or their
meanings are genuinely unclear, judges often resort to other
rules of interpretation, such as the purposive or contextual
approach.

In essence, the key to a judicious interpretation of the law lies in

striking a delicate balance between a strict adherence to statutory
language and the pursuit of justice and fairness. The literal rule
may provide the foundational principles for interpretation, but in
the complex tapestry of legal practice, it is essential to consider
broader contexts, legislative intent, and the evolving needs of
society to ensure that the law truly serves its purpose.
15
Page
 Reference
Seventilal Maneklal Seth v. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Central) Bombay. (1968)

 2 SCJ 129 Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit v. Dasari Ramulu

2001 AIHC 387 (AP).

 Deepak Jain, ‘Interpretation of Statutes: A Treatise’,

 www.itatonline.org/articles_new/index.php/interpretation-of-
statutes-a-treatise. 20 L. J. C. P (N. S) 233 [1851] QBD 1980
Crawford v. Spooner, (1846) 4 MIA 179

 Oriental Insurance Ltd Co. v. Sardar Sadhu Singh, AIR 1994

Raj 44

. Paulus, Roman Jurist

 Arul Nadar v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms (1998) 7 SCC

157

 Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition)

 Garner, Bryan, Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co.USA,

9th Edition, 2009 at

 pg. 247. Construction, Interpretation and Ambiguity, Arani

Chakrabarty,

 www.somethingaboutthelaw.com/2010/05/17/construction-
interpretation-andambiguity/ Coluhoun v. Brooks (1886)21
Q.B.D 52

 Parbhani Transport Coop. Society v. Regional Transport

16

Authority, AIR 1960 SC 801:

Page
 (1960) 3 SCR 177 P. Ramanathan Aiyer, Law Lexicon 2nd
Edition

 Justice G.P Singh, ‘PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY

INTERPRETATION’ 11th Edition.

17
Page