Golden Rule of Interpretation of Statutes - Indian Laws - General

Golden Rules of Interpretation of Statutes Principles of Statutory Interpretation (Eighth Edition, 2001) states (at page 54) __ The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence a construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. The learned author states at another place (at page 74, ibid) that the rule of literal construction whereby the words have to be assigned their natural and grammatical meaning can be departed from but subject to caution. The golden rule is that the words of statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. A departure is permissible if it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used or the object of the statute in which they occur requires a different meaning. To quote, Such a meaning cannot be departed from by the judges in the light of their own views as to policy although they can adopt a purposive interpretation if they can find in the statute read as a whole or in material to which they are permitted by law to refer as aids to interpretation an expression of Parliament s purpose or policy . A modern statement of the rule is to be found in the speech of Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Suthendran v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal , (1976) 3 All ER 611, 616 to the effect __ Parliament is prima facie to be credited with meaning what is said in an Act of Parliament. The drafting of statutes, so important to a people who hope to live under the rule of law, will never be satisfactory unless courts seek whenever possible to apply the golden rule of construction, that is to read the statutory language, grammatically and terminologically, in the ordinary and primary sense which it bears in its context, without omission or addition. Of course, Parliament is to be credited with good sense; so that when such an approach produces injustice, absurdity, contradiction or stultification or statutory objective the language may be modified sufficiently to avoid such disadvantage, though no further . HARBHAJAN SINGH VERSUS PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS. - [ 2002 (3) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT ]