Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Literal Rule of Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    Use Throw
    The document discusses the literal rule of interpretation, which is the primary rule for statutory interpretation. Under this rule, judges consider only the plain meaning of the words used in a statute. The literal rule says the intention of Parliament is found in the ordinary meaning of the words used. If the language is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to it regardless of consequences. However, there are limitations such as ambiguity, absurdity, and the rule being ill-suited to modern social legislation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Literal Rule of Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    Use Throw
    82 views18 pages
    The document discusses the literal rule of interpretation, which is the primary rule for statutory interpretation. Under this rule, judges consider only the plain meaning of the words used in a statute. The literal rule says the intention of Parliament is found in the ordinary meaning of the words used. If the language is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to it regardless of consequences. However, there are limitations such as ambiguity, absurdity, and the rule being ill-suited to modern social legislation.

    Original Description:

    Presentation

    Original Title

    Literal Rule of Interpretation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the literal rule of interpretation, which is the primary rule for statutory interpretation. Under this rule, judges consider only the plain meaning of the words used in a statute. The literal rule says the intention of Parliament is found in the ordinary meaning of the words used. If the language is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to it regardless of consequences. However, there are limitations such as ambiguity, absurdity, and the rule being ill-suited to modern social legislation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    82 views18 pages

    Literal Rule of Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    Use Throw
    The document discusses the literal rule of interpretation, which is the primary rule for statutory interpretation. Under this rule, judges consider only the plain meaning of the words used in a statute. The literal rule says the intention of Parliament is found in the ordinary meaning of the words used. If the language is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to it regardless of consequences. However, there are limitations such as ambiguity, absurdity, and the rule being ill-suited to modern social legislation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 18

    Literal Rule of Interpretation

    By shubham shivraj.
     literal interpretation has been accepted as the
    Primary rule.
    Under this rule the judge considers what the statute
    actually says.
    Principle of separation powers mandates the
    executive must act and the judiciary in the course of
    administration must apply the law aslaid down by
    the said legislative will.
    the judge shall read the words in the statute as it is,
    i.e. their plain, natural, ordinary and everyday
    meaning shall be read in reference to any of the
    enactment whose provisions are in dispute or whose
    scope has been contested thereto, even if the effect
    of this is to produce what might be considered as an
    otherwise unjust or undesirable outcome.

    Meaning of Literal Rule


    The literal rule says that the intention of Parliament is
    best found in the ordinary and natural meaning of the
    words used.
    According to this rule if the language of the statute is
    expressly clear, it shuts the possibility of further
    speculation.
     Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, the
    Court must give effect to it, whatever may be the
    consequences, for in that case the words of the statute
    speak of the intention of the Legislature.

    Continued:
    Lord Diplock observed, ““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 In expedient, or even unjust or
    immoral.
    Expresio Unius Est excusio alterius- the express
    mention of one thing is the exclusion of another.

    Jurisprudential Basis
    Absoluta sententia expositure non indigent- plain
    words need no exposition.
    Verbis legis non est reclendum- which means from
    the word of law there should be no departure.

    Continued:
    According to this rule if the language of the statute is
    expressly clear, it shuts the possibility of further
    speculation. If the word has a single clear meaning and it is
    precisely in consistency with the aim that it leaves no room
    for doubt and no loopholes; it is coextensive with its aim; it
    is ready to accomplish its purpose without marring context
    and object, it is a perfect drafting and it should be
    interpreted in line with the plain Meaning.
    The judges must interpret the provisions, considering only
    the plain grammatical meaning of the words regardless
    whether the conclusion is sensible or senseless even unfair

    Scope of Literal Rule


    The court has nothing to do with the question whether
    the legislature has committed an absurdity.
    The judge should pay attention to ‘what the statute
    actually says rather than considering what it might
    mean’. Even in hard cases.
    The court is not authorized to re-legislate even if they
    consider it is omission on the parliament.
    There is no occasion for resorting to the rules of
    statutory construction. If a statute speaks for itself clearly

    Continued:
    Constitutionally it respects parliamentary supremacy and
    the right of Parliament to make any laws .
    It also encourages precision in drafting and ensures that
    anyone who can read English can determine the law,
    which promotes certainty and reduces litigation.
    A statute must be presumed to have been used in their
    natural sense.
    Statutes are embodiments of authoritative formulae and
    the very words which are used to constitute part of law.

    Rationality and Reasons


    Nelson Motis v. UOI, AIR 1992 SC 1981, when the words of a
    statute are plain ,clear and unambiguous i.e; they are
    reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are
    bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of
    consequences.
    Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, AIR 2013 SC 30, the
    hon’ble Supreme Court court laid down that there may be a
    statute which causes great hardships or inconvenience, the
    court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigour. Hardships
    can’t be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language,
    if such meaning is clear.

    Leading Indian Cases


    Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the main
    question was the interpretation of Section 154 of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that use of
    word “shall” leaves no discretion to police officer to
    hold preliminary enquiry before recording an FIR. Use
    of the expression “information” without any
    qualification also denotes that police has to record
    information despite he being unsatisfied by its
    reasonableness. So here, the court interpreted the
    literal meaning of the words used.

    Continued:
    In the case of Union of India v. Sankarchand Himatlal
    Sheth & another, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme
    Court that: “Where the statute’s meaning is clear
    and explicit, words cannot be interpolated.

    Continued:
    Abley v. Dale (1851)11 CB 378,it was laid down: If the precise
    words are plain and unambiguous, in our judgement, we are
    bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though
    it do lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity or manifest
    injustice.
    The Fisher v Bell case is one of the significant examples of the
    literal interpretation. the Court of Appeal held that the
    conviction should be set aside for the reason that the technical
    meaning in contract law of ‘offer’ was not equal to the display
    of an item in a shop window. This was not an offer; it was only
    an invitation to treat. Under the literal legal meaning of ‘offer’,
    the shop-keeper had not made an offer to sell.

    U.K Cases
    It creates a zone of certainty.
    It tells the public that if the text is plain, it means
    what it says and it is safe to rely on it.
    it supports formal equality.
    It can be used as an apparently neutral proxy for
    strict construction.
    Our relative ignorance of fact.
    Relative indeterminacy of aim.
    . It is not always easy to say whether a word is plain
    or not?
     It is ill suited to modern social legislations.
    It can’t be applied to the changing needs of a
    developing society.

    Limitations
    Logical Defect- ambiguity, inconsistency and
    incompleteness.
    Absurdity or irrationality

    Defects of Literal Rule


    Artful Text Selection-identify the text-to-be-
    interpreted.
    Elastic Co-Text-refers to the text immediately
    surrounding the text-to-be interpreted.
    The Shifting Meaning Game-plain meaning might be
    any of the following:"dictionary" ,facial meaning or
    intended meaning, audience based meaning or
    applied meaning.
    It Must Be Plain To You If It's Plain To Me.

    You might also like