Literal Rule of Interpretation of Statutes
The knowledge of exact interpretation is based on the capability to study what is conveyed in plain language, reread the lines, scan ‘through’ the provision, catechize the intent of the Legislature, and vociferate against case laws and other aids to interpretation.
This article concentrates on the guidelines to be kept in mind while applying it and the critique of this rule has been discussed in this article.
Introduction
The Latin term ‘interpretation’, out of which the term ‘interpretation’ is concluded, indicates conveying or simplifying especially the real significance of something. It is an imitation by which the court seeks to discover the true definition of the statute and decide the purpose of the legislature i.e. correct understanding of the law.
The functions of Judges in interpreting statutes are twofold. First as per the exact meaning of what the legislature has said (express). Second is what the legislature intended to have said (intending).
Interpretation is the main feature of a court and some elements that have been developed out of the continual activity by the court are known as rules of interpretation.
These rules out ambiguity. When the words of statutes are unclosed to more than one interpretation, then the court will have to choose the purpose of the legislature which is used in approving a statute portraying the true purpose of the legislature and these elements are Literal Rule, Golden Rule, and Mischief Rule.
Need for Interpretation of a Statute
The purpose of the interpretation of statutes is to settle down the purpose of the legislature communicated specifically or implicitly in the language used. Interpretation is as old as language.
Detailed interpretation regulations were improved even at a very primal stage of the Hindu society and culture. The significance of escaping literal interpretation was also exhausted in varied ancient textbooks-“Merely following the texts of the law, opinions are not to be untainted, for, if such decisions are deficient in equity, a gross failure of Dharma is caused.”[1] We can say, that the interpretation of statutes is needed for two basic reasons i.e. to realize:
Legislative language-
• Legislative language may be complex for a layman, and hence may need interpretation, and
Legislative Intent-
The intention of legislature or Legislative intent equates to two aspects:
- The concept of ‘meaning’, i.e. what the word means; and
- The concept of ‘purpose’ and ‘object’ or the ‘reason’ or ‘spirit’ penetrates through the statute.
- The statute must be read as a whole in the context
- The statute must be construed to make it effective and workable
- The process of construction combines both the literal and purposive approaches. The purposive construction rule highlights that you should shift from literal construction when it leads to absurdity.
Literal Rule of Interpretation
This rule is also known as the grammatical rule of interpretation or the plain meaning rule. This rule states that the words used in the legal text are to be explained or understood in their natural or simple or dictionary meaning.
• This rule is considered to be the most important and safest rule of interpretation.
It is the first rule applied by the judges. It is only applied if the language or words of the legal statute are crystal clear and there is no confusion.
The law has to be considered as it is and judges cannot go beyond ‘litera legis’ i.e. letter of law. The words of the statute are to be understood in their natural, ordinary, and popular sense.
Rules to be followed in Literal Rule of Interpretation
Ejusdem Generis
The term “ejusdem generis” means “of the same kind”. According to this rule, if several enumerations belonging to the same genus are used in a provision, the meaning of the general word following them gets restricted to that genus only.
If the law refers to cars, trucks, tractors, bikes, and other motor-powered vehicles, then it shall only include roadways and no other mode of transport.
Regina v. Edmundson[2]
In this case, Campbell set out the principle of interpretation known as ‘ ejusdem generis’. This rule provides that if there is a series of some particular words then the word following that series must be about that series.
This helps judges to restrict the wide ambit of the general expression. Thus the requirements for the application of ejusdem generis are there must be the enumeration of specific words, the general term must follow a specific term, there must be no different intention of the legislature to the general term, the series of enumerations should constitute class or category and the category should not be exhausted.
Evans v. Cross[3]
In this case, the court had applied the ejusdem generis rule. Section 48(9) of the Road Traffic Act, of 1930 was in question. The definition of “traffic signals” under Section 48(9) of the Road Traffic Act, of 1930 includes all signals, warning signposts, signs, or other devices.
Casus Omissus
The term “casus omissus” means cases of omission. That means omission in a statute cannot be supplied by construction. The court can interpret the law but cannot legislate.
S.P.Gupta v. President of India[4]
In this case, the court held that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no room for application of the doctrine of casus omissus.
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
In this case, Section 304-A IPC was construed by applying casus omissus. This section provides that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash/negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of a maximum of 2 years or a fine or both.
Here, the court supplied the word “gross” for rash and negligent acts. And the court said that there is no omission, it is just to make legislative intent much more clear.
R v. Inhabitants of Sedgley
In this case, the Poor Relief Act 1601 levied taxes on ‘lands, houses and coal mines’. There was an issue of whether the taxes could be levied on owners of limestone mines. It was held that the Act did not apply to limestone mines as these were not specifically mentioned.
Read Also :- Honour Killings In India
Case Laws of Literal Rule
R v. Harris
In this case, a statute made it an offense to ‘ stab, cut, or wound’ another person. The defendant first bit her friend’s nose in a fight and then bit a policeman’s finger. The court held that the statute pointed towards the interpretation that the wounding should be inflicted with some instrument and not by teeth. the defendant was acquitted.
CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar
In this case, it was held that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court cannot discard the plain meaning even if it leads to injustice.
MotipurZmindari Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar[5]
The question was whether sugarcane fell within the term of green vegetable in the Bihar Sales Tax Act, of 1947. The appellant argued that since sugarcane is a vegetable it should be exempted from tax and stated the dictionary meaning of ‘vegetable’ as something which is derived from plants.
Criticism
- Literal rule claims that it rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning.
Conclusion
This rule is helpful in cases where there is no ambiguity. But with a change in policies and legislation, the statutes cannot still be interpreted by the ordinary meaning of the words made long ago.
[1]All about Literal Rule of Interpretation, https://www.lawcorner.in
[2](1859) 28 LJMC 213
[3]167 U.S.60 (1897)
[4]AIR 1982 SC 149
[5]1962 AIR 660
Written By:-
Mansi Arya