The Latin word “interpretari,” which means “to explain” or “to comprehend,” is where the word “interpretation” originates. The judge must apply the intended interpretation of each statute. Determining what the statute stands for, what the problem it attempts to address, and what solution it aims to advance are the goals of interpretation. ”A number of rules, including the Mischief Rule of Interpretation, the Golden Rule of Interpretation, and the Literal Rule of Interpretation, can be used to carry out the interpretation.”
The following are the three primary goals that explain why the interpretation is necessary:
1. To explain the legislature’s intent behind the creation of the legislation.
2. To understand the true meaning of the clause.
- To understand how provisions cited below the Act are interpreted.
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.” “The function of interpretation/construction is guided by a legal maxim i.e.: “jus dicere et non- jus dare” which suggests declaring the law and to not provide it.”
“In the case of Becke v. Smith Parke B observed”, “If the words are in their plain and unambiguous manner we are certain to construe them in their ordinary sense, even if 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.”
EMERGENCE OF INTERPRETATION
Since the justices were members of the King’s Council and had a significant influence on the creation of the laws at the time, there were no issues with how they were to be interpreted. Later, on the recommendation of Parliament, the King remained the only legislator of law, making it challenging to interpret because judges did not understand the purpose underpinning the creation of various clauses, leading to inconsistencies. This was resolved by determining the King’s wishes at the time the Statute was created and” putting them into effect.
Following the seventeenth-century revolution that ended the monarchy, the “Separation of Power” theory gained popularity, and judges were tasked with providing the necessary interpretation. The present standards of interpretation—the Literal Rule, Golden Rule, and the Mischief Rule—were therefore developed once the interpretation was centred on the statute’s intentions.
UNDERSTANDING OF LITERAL RULE
Words must be read and understood in their literal context when drafting legislation, according to this fundamental guideline. The literal rule is the judges’ first rule. The literal rule is sometimes referred to as the grammar principle by legal scholars. One of the three statutory construction standards that English courts have historically employed is the plain meaning rule, sometimes referred to as the literal rule. The “mischief rule” along with the “golden rule” are the other two.
According to the literal rule, a judge must interpret the law “actually,” or in its most straightforward manner. It is argued that the words themselves better convey the meaning of the law-givers. Interpretation or construction is the process by which the courts try to ascertain the Legislature’s intent using the official form in which it is expressed. Judges cannot deviate from “litera legis,” which requires that the law be interpreted literally and in its totality. The literal meaning serves as a means of figuring out the “ratio legis” of the statute.
When the judges are interpreting the statute, they start by applying this norm. According to Brett, MR, it is a “cardinal rule” that “when you have to understand or interpret a statute or document, you shouldn’t interpret it in accordance to the mere regular general meaning of the words, but in relation to the ordinary meaning of the words as utilised in the area of matter concerning to which they are used”. It is necessary to first recognise and use the term’s fundamental meaning when interpreting. If and only if the meaning thus determined is incompatible with the legislation or goes against its intent, then other interpretation standards must be applied. The definitions section of a statute usually offers a rationalisation of its most important terms. If there are no descriptions or if someone is left out, it becomes important to interpret such concepts.
It is usually better to read a law precisely than to leave it unclear. “There is a postulate that that the terms are interpreted in an Act of Parliament properly and accurately and not arbitrarily and incorrectly,” the decision in a particular case stated. This suggests that the framers of the Act were aware of the expression’s intended meaning and employed it reasonably rather than irrationally. According to the Literal Rule, the world’s common meaning must also be taken into account. For instance, until the idea of live-in partnerships emerged, the term “marriage” in “cruelty throughout the time of marriage” solely referred to marriage. Therefore, the court must now define “marriage” in a way that includes the widely accepted idea within its jurisdiction. “It is an accepted standard of law that criminal law has to be treated strictly,” the respondent’s attorney argued in one of the current rulings. When there are two viable readings, the courts must favour the one that exempts the person from punishment as opposed to one that imposes it”.
In the construction of statutes their words must be interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense unless there is 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.
– Lord Atkinson
To prevent uncertainty, lawmakers also include “definitions” sections in statutes. The most pertinent terms used in the rules are specifically described in these parts. Some statutes, however, either lack a definitions section altogether or, more often than not, fall short of defining a term. When courts are faced with a disagreement regarding the meaning of a term that is not defined by law or a word that is part of a definition, the principle of simple meaning is meant to guide them.
CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION
The conditions for the application for literal rule of interpretation are as follows:
- Statutes may assign specific meanings to terms, often found within the interpretation section of the legislation.
- In the absence of a statutory definition, technical terms are understood according to their standard technical meanings.
- Words should not be added by implication; the text should be interpreted as written.
- Over time, the meanings of words can evolve.
- The meaning of words is shaped by the context in which they are used.
It was once observed by Lord Diplock “where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then for the judges to invent the 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.
CRITICS OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION
The literal rule is predicated on the idea that a word has only one meaning. This limits the ability to infer meaning from the Statute’s context and rely only on its plain language. According to Krishna Iyer J. “to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul”. Because of this, judges prefer to use the golden rule rather than the literal rule when evaluating the purpose of the law rather than its exact wording.
According to Salmond, “The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it”. By making the provision ambiguous and incompatible with the entire statute, the literal rule’s implication leads to absurdity and deviates from the legislation’s intended purpose. Lord Reid in DPP v Ottewell affirmed that “the imprecision of the English language is such that it is extremely difficult to draft any provision which is not ambiguous in that sense”.
The literal rule of interpretation has certain flaws. There could be two distinct types of flaws. The first sort of logical flaw is absurdity or irrationality, while the second type involves ambiguity, inconsistency, and incompleteness. When a term or phrase used in a legislation has multiple meanings and it is unclear which meaning it represents in a given context or location, this is known as ambiguity. Therefore, in order to determine the meaning of the Act, the court will need to go beyond it while still adhering to its exact wording. Also the ambiguity sometimes is “syntactic” It indicates that terms like “or,” “and,” “all,” and others are the source of the ambiguity.
For instance, the court may imprison the accused, issue a fine, or both if the punishment for a particular crime is “fine or imprisonment or both.” Even if it results in unfairness, the Court cannot disregard the plain meaning of a statute if its language is straightforward and clear. The backdrop in which the words are employed is essential to their appropriate understanding. Complete obedience to this principle can lead to unfairness and occasionally produce outcomes that are completely at odds with the statute’s overall intent or common sense.
When a statute contains a gap or omission that prevents it from conveying a complete idea or renders it logically incomplete, it becomes the court’s responsibility to address this defect by making necessary additions or alterations. However, the court’s authority to modify the statute is limited; it can only make minimal changes needed to achieve coherence and applicability, especially when the statute is inapplicable in its existing form.
By Sarthak Mishra, 3rd Year B.A. LL.B (Hons.), Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur
