The Literal Rule of statutory interpretation emphasizes that words in a statute should be interpreted

in their ordinary, literal meaning, without stretching their meaning or imposing any additional
interpretation. This rule is often used as the first step in statutory interpretation, aiming to respect
the text of the law exactly as it is written.

The Literal Rule, as explained in Justice N.S. Bindra's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation," involves
several key principles and ideas that ensure legal interpretation is faithful to the original wording of
the law. Let's go through it in detail, breaking down each important aspect.

1. Statute to Be Read as a Whole

The Literal Rule states that the statute should be read in its entirety. This means:

 You cannot isolate a single section, word, or phrase and interpret it out of context.

 Every word, section, and clause in the statute contributes to the statute's meaning and
purpose, and thus must be understood in relation to each other.

 The different provisions of a law are interconnected, and meaning is derived from the whole
text.

For example, if the statute includes definitions or clarifications in another section, that section must
be considered when interpreting the meaning of a specific phrase elsewhere.

2. Avoiding Addition, Deletion, or Substitution

When applying the Literal Rule, there is a strict emphasis on avoiding any addition, deletion, or
substitution of words or meanings. This means:

 No addition: The interpreter or the court cannot add words or phrases that do not exist in
the statute, even if they believe it would clarify the law or make it more logical.

 No deletion: The interpreter cannot ignore or delete words that are present in the statute.
All words must be given meaning.

 No substitution: Words cannot be replaced with other words that the interpreter feels are
more appropriate, even if the intended meaning seems clear.

In essence, the statute is the law, and the law is what the statute says—not what anyone thinks it
should say.

3. Respecting the Ordinary Meaning of Words

The Literal Rule emphasizes that words are to be understood in their ordinary, grammatical, and
natural meaning. This means:

 Legal drafters are presumed to have carefully chosen their words, so the meaning of the
words as understood in everyday language is the meaning that the law takes on.

 The court's role is not to question why a particular word was used, but to interpret it in its
common usage unless a definition is provided within the statute itself.

For example, if the statute uses the word "vehicle," it will be interpreted according to its ordinary
meaning—something used for transporting people or goods. The courts won't read into this word
additional meanings like aircraft unless explicitly stated.
4. Clarity and Precision in Law

The Literal Rule operates on the assumption that the language used in statutes is clear, precise, and
deliberate. When the language is plain and unambiguous:

 The courts are bound to give effect to that language, even if the result might seem harsh or
unfair.

 Judges must refrain from trying to 'fix' the law by interpreting it in a way that they think
would be more just or rational.

For example, if a statute refers to "three months" as the time limit for an action, the courts cannot
interpret it as "about three months" or "nearly three months" but must strictly enforce that exact
time limit.

5. Literal Rule vs. Other Rules

The Literal Rule stands in contrast to other rules of statutory interpretation, such as:

 The Golden Rule, which allows for a slightly more flexible interpretation to avoid absurd
results.

 The Mischief Rule, which considers the intent and purpose behind the law to address the
‘mischief’ or problem that the law was created to solve.

However, under the Literal Rule, courts only concern themselves with the literal meaning of the
statute, without considering broader questions of purpose or intent, unless ambiguity arises.

6. Literal Interpretation and Legislative Intent

While courts using the Literal Rule focus primarily on the words of the statute, they are still mindful
of legislative intent in a limited way. Specifically:

 The court assumes that the legislature knew what it was doing when it passed the law, and
that every word or phrase has meaning.

 The words used are considered the best indication of the legislature's intention.

However, when the Literal Rule is applied, legislative intent is generally not explored beyond the text
of the statute itself.

7. Application of the Rule in Practice

The Literal Rule has been used in numerous legal cases where courts have had to interpret statutes.
For example:

 If a statute says, "No vehicles in the park," and a person argues that a bicycle or skateboard
should be allowed, the court, applying the Literal Rule, would likely decide that these are
indeed "vehicles" and uphold the statute as written.

While the Literal Rule can sometimes lead to outcomes that seem rigid or unreasonable, its goal is to
preserve the integrity of the legislative process by respecting the exact words used by lawmakers.

8. Examples of Literal Rule in Cases

In legal cases, the application of the Literal Rule has sometimes led to unexpected or even
controversial results. For instance:
  In a famous English case, R v. Harris, the court had to decide whether biting someone could
be classified under a statute that prohibited "stabbing, cutting, or wounding." Using the
Literal Rule, the court determined that biting did not fall under the scope of the statute,
since it did not involve a weapon or sharp object.

This case shows how strictly the Literal Rule can be applied, even when common sense might suggest
a different result.

9. Strengths and Criticisms of the Literal Rule

The Literal Rule has both strengths and weaknesses:

 Strengths: It respects the precise language chosen by the legislature and avoids judges
imposing their own interpretations or policy preferences on the law.

 Criticisms: Sometimes, the Literal Rule can lead to absurd or unjust results if the words of
the statute are applied too rigidly without considering broader context or the purpose
behind the law.

In conclusion, the Literal Rule is one of the oldest and most fundamental methods of statutory
interpretation. While it is valued for its simplicity and focus on the actual text, it can sometimes be
inflexible. When applying this rule, courts must adhere closely to the words chosen by lawmakers,
avoiding any changes to the language or meaning of the statute, while ensuring that every word and
phrase is given its full, natural meaning.

c. Ejusdem Generis

Ejusdem generis is a Latin term meaning “of the same kind” or “of the same nature.” This rule is used
to interpret general words that follow a list of specific words in a statute. The principle behind this
rule is that when a law lists several specific items or categories, and then follows that with a more
general term, the general term is understood to refer to the same kind of things as the specific items
listed before it.

How It Works:

1. Specific Words Followed by General Words:

o When a statute contains specific words followed by more general terms, the general
terms are restricted to the same category or class as the specific words.

o For example, in the phrase “dogs, cats, and other animals,” the term “other animals”
would be interpreted to mean domestic pets, because "dogs" and "cats" are specific
examples of domestic animals. It wouldn't include wild animals like lions or tigers.

2. Purpose of Ejusdem Generis:

o This rule prevents overly broad interpretations of general words by limiting them to
a specific class or category.

o It helps ensure that lawmakers’ intentions are respected by not stretching the
meaning of the statute to include things that were never intended.

Example in Practice:
Suppose a statute says: “No vehicles, bicycles, scooters, or other things shall be allowed in the park.”
Here, “other things” would be interpreted according to the specific words that came before it, which
are vehicles and transportation-related objects like bicycles and scooters. Therefore, “other things”
would refer to other modes of transportation (like skateboards), not entirely unrelated things like
food carts or strollers.

Key Conditions for Ejusdem Generis to Apply:

 List of specific words: There must be a clear list of specific words followed by more general
ones.

 Shared characteristics: The specific words must share a common characteristic or category.

 No explicit contrary intent: If the statute clearly intends the general words to have a broader
meaning, ejusdem generis does not apply. For example, if the law explicitly says, "and other
things of any kind," this signals a broader interpretation.

Limitations of Ejusdem Generis:

 The rule cannot be applied when the statute clearly indicates an intent to cover a broader
scope.

 It only applies when there is ambiguity in the meaning of the general words. If the statute's
wording is clear, ejusdem generis is not used.

d. Rule Against Casus Omissus

The rule against casus omissus is another critical principle of statutory interpretation. It stands for
the idea that courts cannot fill in gaps or "fix" omissions in the law. In simple terms, if the legislature
forgot or failed to include a particular situation or case in the statute, the court cannot step in and
supply that missing provision.

How It Works:

1. Meaning of Casus Omissus:

o The term “casus omissus” is a Latin phrase meaning “a case omitted” or “a case left
out.”

o The rule applies when a particular issue or circumstance is not addressed by the
words of the statute, either because the lawmakers didn’t anticipate it or chose not
to cover it.

2. Court's Role Under This Rule:

o Courts must only interpret the law as it is written, not create or modify the law to
account for situations not explicitly mentioned.

o Judges are not legislators and cannot read into the statute something that isn’t
there.

3. Consequences of Casus Omissus:

 o If a statute doesn’t address a particular issue, even if the omission seems like a
mistake or oversight, courts must leave that matter untouched. It is up to the
legislature, not the courts, to amend the law and fill in any gaps.

Example in Practice:

Suppose a statute provides that “Children under the age of 12 are allowed free admission to the
museum,” but it makes no mention of children aged 12 or over.
Here, the court cannot step in and say that children over 12 should also be allowed free admission
based on fairness or presumed intent. The statute's wording only applies to children under 12, and
the court must apply the law as written. The legislature could later amend the statute to include
older children, but the courts cannot do so.

Key Points of the Rule Against Casus Omissus:

 No filling gaps: The rule emphasizes that omissions in legislation cannot be “fixed” by courts.
If something is not mentioned in the statute, the courts cannot add it.

 Deference to the legislature: The rule reinforces the separation of powers by ensuring that
only the legislature can write or change the law.

 Statutory limits: If the wording of a statute is clear but omits something, the courts must
apply the statute’s clear terms, even if it seems incomplete or unfair.

Exceptions to Casus Omissus:

 There may be some limited cases where courts can interpret an omission as intentional,
particularly if doing so is necessary to prevent the statute from being nonsensical or
unworkable. However, these cases are rare.

 When interpreting statutes that are meant to be comprehensive or that cover all related
situations, courts may be slightly more flexible in interpreting omissions, but this depends on
the specific legal context.

Summary of Both Rules

 Ejusdem Generis: This rule limits the meaning of general terms that follow specific ones to
the same category or class as the specific terms. It prevents overly broad interpretations of
general words.

 Rule Against Casus Omissus: This rule states that courts cannot fill in omissions in statutes. If
a particular issue is left out of the statute, the courts cannot add it in or assume it should be
included.

Importance in Legal Interpretation:

 Ejusdem Generis and the rule against casus omissus both emphasize judicial restraint in the
interpretation of statutes. Judges must respect the literal words chosen by lawmakers and
cannot alter or stretch the law based on assumptions of legislative intent.
  Both rules are key aspects of the Literal Rule of interpretation, which is grounded in the
principle that courts must apply the law as written, with no additions, substitutions, or
modifications.

By following these principles, courts ensure that the law remains faithful to what was actually written
by the legislature, preserving the integrity of the legal process and the clear separation of powers
between lawmakers and judges.

e. Exact Meaning

The exact meaning principle within the Literal Rule stresses that every word in a statute must be
understood in its precise, literal sense. The courts are expected to interpret the law based on the
exact wording chosen by the legislature, without trying to modify or stretch the words to fit any
other context or presumed intention.

Key Aspects of Exact Meaning:

1. Literal and Plain Interpretation:

o Courts give each word in the statute its most basic, straightforward interpretation.
This means that words are understood exactly as they would be in regular use unless
the statute specifies otherwise.

o For example, if a statute says "person," it will be interpreted to mean a human being
unless there is an explicit definition or context within the statute suggesting it
includes legal entities like corporations.

2. No Deviation from Ordinary Language:

o The law assumes that the legislature has deliberately chosen each word with care.
Therefore, the exact meaning of every term is critical to understanding the law as
intended by the lawmakers.

o Courts are not allowed to insert additional meaning into the words of the statute
based on what might seem reasonable or fair.

3. No Room for Broad Interpretation:

o When a statute uses specific terms, those terms are to be taken at face value
without expanding their scope. The law must be applied as written, without giving
the words a wider meaning than intended.

o This ensures that the legal system operates with certainty, as everyone can rely on
the exact wording of the law without second-guessing its interpretation.

Example of Exact Meaning in Practice:

If a statute reads, “It is illegal to drive a vehicle over 80 km/h on this road,” the word “vehicle” would
be interpreted in its exact, ordinary sense. It would include cars, motorcycles, and trucks, but would
not be expanded to include bicycles, which are not generally classified as "vehicles" under traffic
laws.

Importance of Exact Meaning:

  The purpose of adhering to the exact meaning is to avoid ambiguity or subjective
interpretation of laws. This ensures that individuals and entities subject to the law know
exactly what is required of them and can rely on the literal terms of the statute.

 By giving words their exact meaning, courts prevent themselves from altering or reshaping
the law, which is the role of the legislature.

f. Technical Meaning

The technical meaning principle comes into play when a statute uses words that have specialized or
technical significance within a specific field or profession. Unlike ordinary words, which are
interpreted according to their plain meaning, technical words are interpreted according to their
specific meaning within the context in which they are used.

Key Aspects of Technical Meaning:

1. Terms of Art:

o Some statutes use words that have a precise meaning within a particular discipline
or profession, such as law, medicine, engineering, or accounting. When such words
appear, courts must interpret them based on the specialized meaning they hold in
that field.

o For example, legal terms like "res judicata" or "mens rea" carry specific meanings
that are unique to the legal context. These cannot be interpreted using their plain,
ordinary meaning but rather according to their technical legal definitions.

2. Deference to Expert Knowledge:

o When interpreting technical terms, courts often refer to dictionaries, textbooks, or

expert testimony from the relevant field to understand the precise meaning of the
word or phrase.

o This ensures that the statute is applied correctly in situations that require specialized
knowledge, as misinterpreting a technical term could lead to a flawed application of
the law.

3. Context Matters:

o The context in which a technical word is used plays a crucial role in how it is
interpreted. For example, the word “discharge” can have different meanings
depending on whether it appears in the context of bankruptcy law (where it refers to
the release of a debtor from liability) or in a medical statute (where it could refer to a
patient leaving a hospital).

o The court must carefully examine the statute to ensure that technical terms are
understood in the correct context.

4. Statutory Definitions:

o Some statutes provide their own definitions for technical terms. In such cases, the
court is bound to use the meaning as defined in the statute, even if that meaning
differs from the ordinary or technical meaning typically associated with the term.
 o For instance, in a tax law, the term "income" might be defined more narrowly or
broadly than it is in common parlance or even in accounting.

Example of Technical Meaning in Practice:

Suppose a statute regulating the banking industry uses the term “collateral.” In everyday language,
"collateral" might simply mean something provided as security for a loan. However, in a technical
sense, the term could refer to specific types of financial instruments or assets used in the context of
secured transactions. The court would interpret the term according to its technical banking or
financial meaning.

Importance of Technical Meaning:

 The use of technical meanings ensures that laws are applied accurately in specialized areas
of regulation. Many modern laws govern complex fields such as medicine, technology,
finance, and environmental science, where general language might not be adequate to
capture the law’s intent.

 Interpreting technical terms based on their specialized meaning prevents misunderstandings

that could arise if such words were interpreted in their ordinary sense.

Summary of Exact and Technical Meanings in the Literal Rule

1. Exact Meaning:

o The exact meaning principle emphasizes that statutes must be interpreted using the
precise and ordinary meanings of the words chosen by the legislature. Courts are
prohibited from adding or expanding meanings to make the statute fit a broader or
more convenient interpretation. Words must be taken literally and applied strictly as
written, providing certainty and consistency in legal interpretation.

2. Technical Meaning:

o The technical meaning principle applies when words in a statute have specialized
meanings in particular fields or industries. In such cases, courts must interpret the
words according to their specific, professional, or expert meanings rather than their
ordinary, general definitions. This ensures the law is applied correctly in technical or
specialized contexts.

Interrelation of Exact and Technical Meanings

While exact meaning refers to interpreting words in their plain, ordinary sense, technical meaning is
concerned with interpreting words in their specialized sense when they are used in a specific field.
Both principles serve the broader goal of applying the law as it is written, ensuring that the courts do
not change the meaning of the statute based on assumptions or subjective views.

These two rules ensure that statutory interpretation is precise and faithful to the legislative text.
Whether interpreting everyday language or specialized terminology, courts must adhere to the literal
language of the law, preserving the integrity and intention of the legislature.

Importance in the Legal Framework

  Certainty and Predictability: By adhering to the exact and technical meanings, the Literal
Rule promotes certainty in the law, ensuring that individuals and businesses know what the
law says and can act accordingly.

 Limiting Judicial Activism: These principles prevent courts from reading into the law
meanings that were not clearly articulated by the legislature, reinforcing the separation of
powers between the judiciary and the legislature.

 Clarity in Complex Fields: The technical meaning rule is especially important in modern
legislation, where laws often deal with specialized fields that require precise language to
avoid confusion or misapplication.

In summary, exact meaning and technical meaning ensure that the Literal Rule is applied with
accuracy and respect for the text of the statute, maintaining both fairness and fidelity to the
legislative process.