LITERAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

Literal Rule of interpretation is the first rule of interpretation which is also known as the grammatical rule of interpretation. If the word of the legislature is clear and unambiguous then the court will apply the literal rule of interpretation to give the word of the enactment ordinary and natural meaning whatever the consequences may be. Literal rule of interpretation is law as it is means to understand the words of the legislature as it is intended. The main object of this rule is to know whatever the intention of the legislature expressed through the words to be interpreted according to the rule of grammar. It is known as the safest rule of interpretation as the words of the enactment can be deduced only from the language through which it has expressed itself. Brett M.R. called the literal rule as a ‘Cardinal Rule’. The Court use the literal rule of interpretation where the words clear and there is no ambiguity or absurdity, the intention of the legislature can be clearly conveyed.

LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

The Literal rule of Interpretation go along with the legal maxim “Verbis legis non est recelendum” which means “from the words of law there should be no departure.” Literal rule of interpretation means the court shall interpret the words of a statute in their literal or ordinary sense without considering the consequences of the legislation. This rule is applied when the words of legislature is absolutely clear and unambiguous. In this interpretation the word of the statute construed according to their literal meaning or popular or dictionary meaning or in the plain sense so it is also known as ‘Plain Rule of Interpretation.’

In the Case of Abley v. Gale[1] Chief Justice Jervis has explained the expression ‘literal meaning’ as “if the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgement we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense even though it too leads in our view of the case to an absurdity or manifest injustice.”

In the case Crawford v. Spooner[2], it was held that “the words of a statute are to be first understood in their ordinary, natural or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary.”

As per the principle of literal rule even if the meaning of the statute through decision is unjust no judge can be deviate from that meaning. In the literal rule of interpretation first and foremost thing is the word of the statute must be prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It doesn’t look beyond the written words of the legislature. The court have to follow this rule even if he believes that it results in irrationality or contrary to the policy or intention of legislation. It doesn’t look beyond the litera legis which means letter of legislation.[3] This rule of interpretation restricts the court to always give the natural meaning to the words so interpreted. It is not duty of the judiciary to rectify or modify the act even if the interpretation leads to absurdity or irrationality but it is the burden or load of the legislature to correct it.

MERITS OF LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

• In the literal rule there is no scope for the judges to express their own opinion while interpreting the words, their duty is to give the natural and ordinary meaning of the words.
• As per this rule the legislation can only rectify or modify the absurdity or irrationality in the enactment of laws so it respects the parliamentary supremacy and upholds separation of power.
• This rule is easy to apply among all other rules as it only provides literal, plain or the dictionary meaning of the word.
• This rule prevents arbitrariness as the court interpret the statute on the basis of its plain meaning of the words rather than the personal opinion of the judges.
• This rule is more efficient than other rules as it does not require extensive analysis of the context or intention of the legislature.
• It prevails the legislative intent as it assumes that legislature meant what it said in the statute.

DEMERITS OF THE RULE OF INTERPRETATION

• Ambiguity occurs in the literal rule of interpretation where a word or term or expression used in the statute has not one meaning but consist various meaning which differ context to context and it is not clear which one particular meaning it represents at which particular context or place.
• According to this rule even if the court knows that the consequences of the interpretation leads to ambiguity or irrationality yet they have to stick to the same literal words of the statute to ascertain the meaning.
• This rule can lead to injustice as it does not take into consideration the consequences of the interpretation.
• In the literal rule there are chances of creating misleading precedent while deciding the cases.
• In this rule there are no power of the courts to alter the words of the legislature even if it leads to the ambiguity or absurdity, it is not open for judicial innovations.
• This rule can be used to evade the laws as the individuals may exploit the loopholes in the words of the statute to avoid the liability.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELATED TO THE LITERAL RULE

• In the case Kanai Lal v. Paramnidh[4] the court held that “it must always be borne in mind that the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature.” SC also added “When the material words are capable of two constructions, one of which is likely to defeat or impair the policy of which is likely to defeat or impair the policy of the Act whilst the other construction is likely to assist the achievement of the said policy, then the courts would prefer to adopt the latter construction.”
• In the case A. Venkataraman v. The State[5], the court held that “In construing the provisions of a statute it is essential for a court, in the first instance, to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used therein, if those words are clear enough.”
• In the case of Ramavatar vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer[6] , the question arises before the hon’ble court that whether the betel leaves were subject to sales tax under the C.P and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, whether the betel leaves came under the definition of the ‘vegetable’. The Supreme Court held that “betel leaves could not be given the dictionary or botanical meaning when the ordinary and natural meaning is clear and unambiguous. Being a word of everyday use, it must be construed in its popular sense.” Therefore, it was held that betel leaves were subjected to the sales tax under the said act.
• In the case of Motipur Zamindary Co Ltd vs. State of Bihar[7], the question arose before the court that whether the sugarcane fell within the meaning of ‘green vegetable’ under Entry 6 of the Schedule of Bihar Sales Tax Act 1947 for the purpose of sales tax. Supreme Court held that “the word green vegetables in its popular sense includes vegetables that can be grown in the kitchen garden and can be used for eating during lunch or dinner. Therefore, sugarcane doesn’t fall under the definition of the green vegetable.”
• In the case of Forest range officer vs. Khushboo Enterprise[8], the question arose whether sandal wood oil fall under the definition of “wood oil” as used under Section 2(f) of the Kerala Forest Act,1961. The argument referred the meaning of wood oil defined as a natural produce of the forest in a technical dictionary. Therefore, the court held that Sandalwood oil was a wood oil.

CONCLUSION

Literal rule of interpretation is known as the primary rule of the interpretation. In this rule the court interpret the word of the statute and provide its natural or ordinary or plain meaning. There are no power of the court to alter or modify the words if it provides ambiguous or absurdity meaning of the word. Under this rule court must stick to the literal meaning of the words of the statute and the opinion of the judges has no significance. The Literal rule of interpretation follows three subsidiary rules which are Ejusdem Generis, Casus Omissus and Expressio unius est excusio alterius. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Calcutta V. National Taj Traders[9] tt was decided that the legislature’s goal must be determined by the specific language of the statute, where they appear in their exact and accurate form. However, the courts may use any reasonable and acceptable aids to interpretation if the same is conveyed in unclear and vague language. The court can only provide the Casus Omissus concept when there is an obvious need and when certain provisions of the Act itself are violated. The grammatical rule of interpretation, the plain rule of interpretation, and the cardinal rule of interpretation are other names for the literal rule of interpretation.

REFERENCES

[1] 20 L.J.C.P (N.S) 233 (1851).

[2] (1846) 4 MIA 179

[3] H.N TEWARI, LEGAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 95 (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad,1997).

[4] AIR 1957 SC 907

[5] AIR 1958 SC 107

[6] AIR 1961 SC 1325

[7] AIR 1962 SC 660

[8] AIR 1994 SC 120

[9] AIR 1980 SC 485