LITERAL RULE
The term Interpretation has been derived from the Latin term interpretari which means to explain
or understand. Every statute has to be interpreted by the judge the way it is meant to be
understood.
The purpose of interpretation is always to find out what the statute stands for, what is the defect it
intends to remove and what is the remedy it seeks to advance.
The basic principle of the construction of statutes is that, the words have to be read and understood
in their true literal sense. The Literal Rule is the first rule applied by the judges. The literal rule is also
called grammatical rule by some jurists. The literal rule means that a judge has to consider what the
statute says literally, i.e. its simple plain meaning without any ambiguity. It is said that the words
themselves best declare the intention of the law- givers
In the literal rule of interpretation, the law has to be considered as it is and the judges cannot go
beyond the literal meaning. The literal interpretation is a means to ascertain the true meaning of the
statute.
Lord Diplock observed in Duport Steel Ltd v Sirs that :
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 inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.
The words of a statute are to be first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and
phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to
some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest
the contrary
No judge can deviate from the meaning of the statute though decision maybe unjust. The words of a
statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning
The advantages of the literal rule:
1. The literal rule enables the common man to understand the statute.
2. The intent of the legislature is simple and clear.
3. The literal rule respects the parliamentary supremacy in administration of justice.
4. Under literal rule the law is quite predictable.
The dis-advantages of the literal rule:
1. The literal rule can lead to unreasonable decision making.
2. The English language is ambiguous.
3. The application of literal meaning in all situations and circumstances is not possible.
4. The rule expects standards of unattainable perfection from the parliamentary draftsman.
The rules to be followed in literal rule of interpretation of statutes:
Ejusdem Generis:
The principle of ejusdem generis is a legal principle that states that when a list of specific items is
followed by general words, the general words are interpreted to include only items of the same type
as those specifically listed. In other words, the principle states that when a statute uses specific
words, followed by general words, the general words will be given a restricted meaning, limited to
the same class or genus as the specific words. This principle is often applied in statutory construction
and legal interpretation.
Casus Omissus:
Casus Omissus means cases omitted. Casus omissus also means a point not provided by the statute.
It is basically a situation not provided for by a statute or contract and therefore governed by case-
law or new-judge made law.
It is a canon of construction, requiring the court to draw up principles of statutory construction,
which are then going to be followed by subsequent judges in their judicial decisions
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius:
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius means that one thing having been mentioned the other is
excluded.a principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly
mentioned others of the same class are excluded
Case Laws
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay,
In this case, the appellant, a citizen of India after arriving at the airport did not declare that he was
carrying gold with him. During this search was carried on, gold was found in his possession as it was
against the notification of the government and was confiscated under section 167(8) of Sea Customs
Act.
Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947. The
appellant challenged this trial to be violative under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than once for the same
offence. This is considered as double jeopardy.
Held, that the proceeding before the Sea Customs Authorities
was not a "prosecution" and the order for confiscation was
not a " punishments inflicted by a Court or Judicial
Tribunal within the meaning of Art. 20(2) of the
Constitution and the prosecution was not barred.
R v. Harris (1863)
In this case, the defendant bit the plaintiff’s nose. The statute made it an offence 'to stab cut or
wound' the court held that under the literal rule the act of biting did not come within the meaning of
stab cut or wound as these words implied an instrument had to be used. Therefore, the defendant
was acquitted.
Fisher v. Bell
In this case, the defendant displayed flick knife with price tag in his shop. The statute made it a
criminal offence to 'offer' such flick knives for sale. His conviction was quashed as goods on display in
shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an invitation to treat. The court applied the literal
rule of statutory interpretation in this case.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. T. V Sundaram Iyyengar (1975)
The meaning of Literal Rule was given in this case as, "If the language of the statute is clear and
unambiguous, the Court cannot discard the plain meaning, even if it leads to an injustice."
Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT (1990)
The meaning of literal rule is stated that, as long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language,
resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible.
Criticisms :
Literal rule claim that it rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. The
literal rule of interpretation leads to injustice. There are chances of creating misleading precedents
while deciding cases. The courts do not have the power to alter the words of the legislature, it is not
open for judicial innovations. The words cannot be understood properly without the context in
which it is used.
The strict adherence to this principle may cause injustice and sometimes it might give results which
are quite contrary to general intention of statute or common sense. Due to the absurdity that is
prevalent in literal rule of interpretation, the court may ascertain a literal meaning which was not
intended by the legislature. If the court applies literal rule and feels that the interpretation is morally
wrong then they cannot avoid giving the interpretation.
With changing and adopting of new policies and legislature, the statutes cannot be interpreted in
their traditional way i.e, taking the literal meaning of the words used. Hence these make literal rule
not suitable to present situation.
Conclusion:
The literal rule of interpretation, while promoting clarity and certainty, can sometimes lead to
outcomes that are contrary to the legislative purpose or produce absurd results. While it emphasizes
judicial restraint and the clear expression of legislative intent through statutory language, it may fall
short when dealing with complex or evolving social issues. Courts in both India and other common
law jurisdictions have struggled with balancing the literal rule against more purposive or contextual
approaches, particularly when strict adherence to the plain meaning results in injustice or absurdity.
