Synopsis
I. Grammatical or literal construction
1. Literal or strict construction : application
2. Restricted meaning : when given
3.Logical defects
4. The Golden Rule – ascertaining intent from language used
5. Effect to be given irrespective of consequences
6. Deviation when justified
7. Words with legal connotations
8. Reddendo singula singulis
9. Non-obstante Clause
10. Changing trend in interpretation
I. Grammatical or literal construction
Literal interpretation is also known as grammatical interpretation. Only the verbal expression of law is to be taken into consideration in case of this construction. Courts do not travel beyond the literal construction or the ‘litera legis’.
Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw cotton Co. Ltd.(1955)
The cardinal rule of construction of statute is to read statute literally, that is, by giving to the words their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If , however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning the court may adopt the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation.
1. Literal or strict construction : application
Rules of interpretation such as the mischief rule, purpose interpretation, etc, can only be used when the words of statute are ambiguous or leads to no intelligent result or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
In all ordinary cases, grammatical interpretation being the only interpretation allowable, other methods of extracting the meaning can be resorted to, if the language is contradictory, ambiguous or leads really absurd results.
2. Restricted meaning
State of U.P v. Malik Zarid Khalid (1988)
In certain cases, courts are compelled to subordinate the plain meaning of the statutory language. It, thus, gives a restricted meaning to a provision, but it is there, only where it is needed, otherwise it may be clearly opposed to the object and scheme of the Act or may lead to an absurd, illogical or unconstitutional result.
3.Logical defects
Grammatical interpretation has three logical defects:
1) Ambiguity
2) Inconsistency
3) Incompleteness of law
The courts can go behind the litera legis to find out the real intention of the legislature in case of ambiguity in the language of the statute. In case of two possible meanings, the one which is more natural, obvious and consonant with the ordinary use of language, must be adopted.
Inconsistency between different parts of a statute could destroy and nullify their meaning.
Thus, the courts have to find out the true intention of the legislature and correct the letter of law.
Nasiruddin v. STAT, (1975)
It has been observed that if their are two different interpretations of the words in an act, the court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible, rather than that, which is none of those things.
In case of incompleteness, there could be such a lacuna or gap i.e. logical incompleteness in law that it would not allow the whole meaning to be clear or to be expressed. In such a situation, the court has to resort to logical interpretation rather than grammatical interpretation.
4. The Golden Rule – ascertaining intent from language used
Golden rule is the modified form of the principal of grammatical interpretation.
According to the Golden rule of interpretation, unless the literal meaning of a document leads to anomaly or absurdity, the principles of literal interpretation should be adhered to. The provisions provided in a statute have to be considered as the legislative thought subject to constitutional and other limitations.
According to Maxwell on interpretation of statute, the object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of Parliament, “ but the intention of Parliament must be deduced from the language used” for “ it is well accepted that the beliefs and assumption of those who frame the Acts of Parliament cannot make the law”
As observed in Sussex Peerage Case 1844,
"The only rule for the construction of the acts of parliament is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary to explain the words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such cases, best declare the intention of the law giver."
Lord Wensleydale stated the rule in Grey v. Pearson (1857)
" The ordinary grammatical sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to an 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 such absurdity and inconsistency, but no further."
It has been called the golden rule as it has been observed that it solves all the problems.
When the term, "construction" of a statute is being used, in reality the golden rule is being applied; while when the term "interpretation" is used, the literal rule is being applied, after considering the object of the statute.
As stated by Viscount Symonds, LC,
" The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given the ordinary meaning."
5. Interpretation to be applied irrespective of consequences
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environment Action Group
"The cardinal rule of interpretation is that unless literal meaning given to a document leads to anomaly or absurdity, the principles of literal interpretation should be adhered to."
6. Deviation from plain words when justified
Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. (1978)
A court may deviate from the plain word of the statute when it is satisfied that,
1. There is a clear and gross balance of anomaly
2. Parliament, the legislative promoters and the draftsman could not have envisaged such anomaly and could not have been prepared to accept it in the interest supervening legislative objective
3. The anomaly can be obviated without detriment to such a legislative objective
4. The language of the statute is susceptible to the modification required to obviate the anomaly.
7. Words with legal connotations
Whenever a particular word acquires a particular connotation in law, dictionaries cease to be helpful in the interpretation of that particular word. E.g. final order, judgment, in course of employment, have their own technical meaning. It may be possible that the intention of the legislator is not to use the word in its legal sense.
Jones v. Tower Book Co. Ltd (1997)
In this case, Section 32, Race Relations Act, 1976 (UK), had provision in relation to the acts of racial discrimination committed by a person "in the course of his employment". In law of torts, this expression has a technical meaning which results in vicarious liability. Accepting this meaning would have defeated the object of the act by restricting the scope of operation of the Act. Thus the expression was interpreted to have its natural everyday meaning .
8. Reddendo singula singulis
This Latin expression means "referring each to each".
It is a mode of interpreting a document whereby each phrase is referred to its appropriate object. [ Samatha v. State of A.P. (1997)]
This rule was quoted by the Supreme Court in the case Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co. (1969) from Black's Interpretation of Laws
"When a sentence in a statute contains several antecedents and several consequences, they are to be read distributively, that is to say, each phrase or expression is to be referred to it's appropriate objects."
This rule was applied in the construction of Article 304 of Constitution which read:
"Provided that no bill or amendment for the purpose of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President". The supreme court held that the word "introduced" referred to "Bill" and the word "moved" to "Amendment."
9. Non-obstante Clause
Sometimes, a section begins with "notwithstanding anything contained in" etc.. Such a Clause is called a non obstante clause. It means that the section containing the non obstante clause will have an overriding effect, if there is a conflict between it and the rest of the provision.
10. Changing trend in interpretation
Kehar Singh vs State (Delhi Admn.) (1988)
In this case, regarding changing trend in interpretation from literal or grammatical meaning, Shetty J has observed:
"In the past, the judges and lawyers spoke of a golden rule by which statutes were to be interpreted according to grammatical and ordinary sense of the word. They took the grammatical or literal meaning unmindful of the consequences. Even if such a meaning gave rise to unjust results which legislature never intended, the grammatical meaning alone was kept to prevail. They said that it would be for the legislature to amend the Act and not for the court to intervene by its innovation."
The golden rule has been given a go-by for the past several years. Courts now consider the intention of the Legislature or the purpose of the statute. It would apply the rational meaning if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or give rise to doubt.
!