“The essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it” – Salmond

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, the act or process of discovering and expounding the intended significance of the language used in any written document, the meaning, which the author wants to convey to others is called interpretation.[1] Interpretation of statutes is quite an old practice. As long as there has been law, there has been statutory interpretation. It is the process of giving true meaning to the statute. The main objective of interpretation is to understand the legislative intent of the particular statute conveyed through the language used in the statute.

According to Salmond, “by interpretation or construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed”.[2]

It is not expected from the courts and judges to do unreasonable and unjust interpretation that is why there are certain rules and principles evolved by the courts by continuous practice. There are mainly three fundamental rules of interpretation suggested in the English Cases[3]: –

·       Rule of Literal Interpretation.

·       Golden Rule of Interpretation.

·       Mischief Rule of Interpretation.

Ø Rule of Literal Interpretation

The object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of Legislature, but the intention of the legislature must be deducted from the language used in the piece of legislation. Proper construction of statutory language is always a matter of law.[4] If the language is not clear, words have to be construed in the light of the legislative scheme, the object, and purpose of enacting the provision and the ultimate effect of adopting one or the other construction.[5] The act of providing ordinary and natural meaning to the words in a statute is called literal interpretation. Where the language is plain and admits of but one meaning only, the task of interpretation hardly arises. There should be a full and fair use of particular legislative language to the particular fact.[6]

Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, that construction ought to prevail unless there be some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary.[7] The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation is the rule and only if the language of an enactment is ambiguous recourse to another rule can be taken.[8] The Courts cannot add words to a statute or read the words into which they are not there. The Courts should proceed on the assumption that the Legislature did not make a mistake and that it intended to say what is said.[9]

ü  Conditions for Applying Rule of Literal Interpretation

1.     The statute must provide special meaning for a term itself in the interpretation section.

2.     Technical terms are given ordinary technical meaning if the statute has not specified any other.

3.     Words must not be inserted by implication.

4.     Words undertake shifts in their meaning over time.

5.     It is remembered that the words always obtain importance from their context.[10]

In the case of Municipal board v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan,[11] the regional transport authority changed the location of the bus stand. According to section 64 A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939[12] an application could be moved within 30 days of receipt of the order of regional transport authority. The application was moved after the completion of 30 days on the contention that statute must be read as “30 days from the knowledge of the order”. The Supreme Court held that literal interpretation must be applied and hence rejected the application as invalid.

Ø  Golden Rule of Interpretation

Golden Rule of Interpretation of Statutes are one of best and integral rule according to which until unless there is no absurdity and inconsistency occurs in the construction it is best to adhere with the ordinary sense of meaning and still the problem persists then look into the intention of the legislature and adhere to that construction for proper implementation.

The golden rule comes into play where some doubt exists to the meaning of the word. When literal interpretation gives some irrational and vague meaning, and such interpretation cannot be accepted, then the Golden Rule is applied to remove such vagueness.

Lord Wensleydale called it the Golden Rule and adopted it in Grey v Pearson[13] and thereafter it is usually known as Lord Wensleydale’s Golden Rule. This is another version of the golden rule. His Lordship expressed himself thus:

“I have been long and deeply impressed with the wisdom of the rule, now I believe universally adopted at least in the courts of law in Westminster Hall that in construing wills, and indeed statutes and all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further.”[14]

There are two approaches to apply the Golden Rule: –

a.      Narrow Approach- This approach is used when the word or phrase is competent for more than one literal meaning. This allows the judge to apply the meaning, which avoids the vagueness.[15]

b.     Broad Approach- This approach is applied when there is only one literal meaning. However, applying that one literal meaning would cause vagueness. Under this approach, the court modifies the meaning to avoid the vagueness. The modification is made keeping in mind the intention of the Parliament in making the law in question.[16]

The application of the Golden Rule of Construction, and its limits can be seen in the area devoted to construction concerning the consequences, and construction to avoid inconvenience and injustice, and to prevent evasion.[17] He illustrated the application of the rule in various cases relating to criminal, civil, labor, revenue taxation and administration branches of law.[18]

From the above discussion, it is quite clear that Golden Rule is applicable when there is an absurdity in the construction of the statute and when it is not possible to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the statute then finally the modification is done to implement the correct meaning and intention of the parliament.

Ø  Mischief Rule of Interpretation

The mischief rule is to be considered as one of the integral and indispensable rules as far as the Interpretation of Statute is concerned. It is often referred to as the “rule in Heydon’s Case”.[19] Counted as a landmark judgment in the history of Mischief rule, was reported by Lord Coke and decided by the Barons of the Exchequer in the 16th century laid down the following rules: – 

“That for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes, in general, is they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law; four things are to be considered. Judges are always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.”[20]

The mischief rule is not a rule which is to be followed through the elimination rule method instead it comes into picture when there is defect or mischief in the statute which is unable to resolve so in that case, it is necessary to use Mischief rule to ratify and get it resolved.

While deciding the intention of the Public Order Act 1936, the court in Parkin v. Norman[21] dealt with the scope and application of Mischief rule. The court held that the said Act was never designed to deal with homosexual behavior in public toilets.

The title of the Act reads as: –  “An Act to prohibit the wearing of uniforms in connation with political objects and the maintenance by private persons of associations of military or similar characters; and to make further provision for the preservation of public order on the occasion of public processions and meetings and in public places.”[22]

After reading the long title of the Act it is sufficiently clear that it does not talk about homosexual behavior in public toilets therefore, there is no mischief at all. The purposes of the Act and the mischief rule are, therefore, closely connected, and it is very genuine to look at the long title.

The mischief rule is known for discovering the Legislature’s intent and to give the judge more discretion than any other rule. It allows the judge to effectively decide on the intent of the parliament. Its main aim is to determine the ‘mischief and defect’ in the particular statute and set out the remedy, and what ruling would effectively implement this remedy. When material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions the most firmly established rule for the construction of such words, “of all statutes in general” is termed as Mischief Rule also known as purposive construction.[23]

Ø Conclusion

Every sovereign nation has its different judicial system but every judicial system aims to provide justice to all. Therefore, the foremost duty of courts to interpret the law in such a way that it secures justice to all without any vagueness. To secure justice to all, these rules are continuously evolved by the courts and it is still evolving across the globe to determine the legislative intent of the statutes.

Every time it is not necessary that the words used in the legislation are clear, explicit and unambiguous, therefore, in such cases, it is the duty of the courts to remove that ambiguity and vagueness from the statute and determine the legislative intent. Hence, all the rules described above are very important for providing justice.