A STUDY ON GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION WITH CASE LAWS

Category: ARTICLE
Blog Post Image
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」

Lord Wensleydale gave his remarks that were the very first remark on the Golden Rule. As long as the adherence to the original meaning of the words given in the legislation does not lead to any inconsistency or vagueness, we can proceed with such a method. When the literal rule of Interpretation of Statutes leads to such a meaning that is vague or does not seem to match with the motive behind the creation of the law then the Golden Rule of Interpretation is preferred. The meaning of “vague” or “inconsistency” is such that when a particular form of interpretation gives us some results that the court feels is not up to what the law was made for. Then the court can deviate from the plain meaning to give the statute a proper interpretation and following up of justice. The process of Interpretation of Statutes is that the wordings of the said legislation will be first given their literal sense. If such interpretation in the literal sense leads to absurdity then the Interpretation will be modified to properly carry out delivery of justice or inconsistent with the true intention which such statute was made. 

Keywords- golden rule, interpretation, statute, vague, inconsistency. 

INTRODUCTION- 

When we talk about the interpretation of statutory law, it is a method of giving the true meaning of the given statute or giving sense to the wordings of such legislation. Question of Law is not raised in a situation where the meaningful sense of wordings in the English Language is concerned. The systematic establishment of such a sense on a par with the legislation raises the question. The Role of Interpretation of Statutory Law is to undo those shackles that the law-making body has strapped to the statutory law in question. . For undoing the shackles, keys are to be used. These keys are nothing but the principles of interpretation and any sort of aid for interpretation. The most proper way of interpreting the statute is to seek out the intention behind which the statute was made and read with the given facts of the case. We should keep in mind that any sort of interpretation of the statute that defeats the purpose of the statute should be avoided as much as possible. The way of interpretation is such that the words should be read literally or be given their literal meaning to be in line with the actual meaning of the statute. The intention of the legislature and the grammar used should go hand in hand when we are reading out a statute. It is necessary to understand the motive or intention behind which the statute was made to draw out the vague meaning or inconsistency as much as possible. “The essence of Law” mentioned by Salmond is to be considered when determining the meaning of the legislation. The primary task of the courts is to find the motive of the lawmaker as to the creation of such legislation. Statutory laws must be understood from the ordinary and grammatical sense of the wordings to explore the mind of the law-making body. If the literal meaning or the plain meaning of the words in the statute leads to absurdity or ambiguity, courts must interpret them in the ordinary sense to deviate from the actual meaning of the statute which may seem injustice but to understand the true motive for which the statute was made.  

GOLDEN RULE- 

It is also known as Wensleydale’s Golden Rule. Established through various case laws, its usage is mainly when the derivation of the meaning of the statutory law deviates from the motive of the lawmaker as to the creation of such legislation or brings about some absurdity that cannot be left unchecked.  

Wensleydale’s Golden Rule was firstly established by Lord Wensleydale. If the meaningful sense of the wordings vary from the motive of the lawmaker as to the creation of such legislation to be construed from the statutory law in question and should such derivation results in finding any vagueness, then such derivation must have deviated to avoid inconsistency or inconvenience. It is one of the well-established rules of determination of the meaning of the statutory law in dispute that if the wordings of the legislation are unambiguous and accurate then it is not suggested to further explain those wordings in their original and accurate sense. Next, it would be established that the wordings of the legislation in the case is the most accurate way of determining the motive of the lawmaker as to the creation of such legislation. It is an established rule of construction that where alternative methods of the derivation of meanings are available then that alternative is to be taken into consideration that will be on par with the proper functioning of the law governing body that the statutory law regulates; and that the alternative will not be taken into consideration that creates problems into the law governing body.  

The classic illustration of the Principle in the discussion is the case where legislation allowed the commercial bodies to shift the undertaking from the dissolved body to the recently formed body. Under the legislation, “Transfer” was raising a disagreement as it stated that it includes all the dissolved body rights, parcels, debts, and duties of the dissolved body goes to the recently formed commercial body. The disagreement was to if the stirring of the over mentioned included the Contract of Service between the former hand and the dissolved commercial body. 

This mistrustfulness was removed by the House of Lords and held that for the commercial body to do that, it was necessary to get the express concurrence of similar hand. The notice of the sale between the two commercial bodies should have been given to the hand by the recently formed body. If the legislation suggested that the hand would have been a part of the company through the transfer of Contract of Service in the absence of the hand’s express concurrence also the given wordings can be deduced to explain this motive. 

 Maxwell says that applying the Golden Rule of Interpretation and its failings can be established or observed in the field devoted establishment of the meaning of the legislation in terms of the  out growths and  derivate to dodge hindrances and confinement of justice and to avoid escaping from the law. Also as explained concerning Maxwell’s proposition in the case where it was held that the internee who eloped while the jail was burning would not constitute to be a felony of  “to break from captivity ”. It was held that his act was to save his life and not to be at liberty. A  enactment that made the act to be in ‘ Felonious terms’ in non-determined terms wasn't applicable where the act committed was condonable on grounds  honored by the law governing body. 

Where in a situation there are two possible ways of interpretation, the most reasonable bone should be chosen to keep a smooth working system of Law. The interpretation shouldn't be chosen which will prove to be producing asininity in the law.  

INTERPRETATION W. R. T. INDIAN COURTS- 

Indian Courts face several cases where they've applied the Golden Rule, be it High Court or Supreme Court. One may face certain confusions while applying this rule. As the Golden rule starts with the phase of operation of the nonfictional rule of Interpretation on the legislation and should there be any asininity or query also the Golden rule is applied. 

Similar there's any possibility that there's  further than one  outgrowth of the Interpretation  also we should go further to dodge query by changing the language by adding, rejecting, or removing words to make a proper conclusion as to the motive of the  legislator as to the creation of  similar legislation. 

Well established by the Court where the legislation in disagreement was whether it allowed the distribution of land to persons who had no land. Under this horizon, a person who's involved in the exertion of Agriculture will be taken into consideration. A person involved in any kind of business can be also allowed of as coming under this horizon but the motive was to allow the persons involved in husbandry to be given a source of profit and a helping hand. 

Landmark Judgment in Lee v. Knapp where the mishaps in the legislation were disputed. The Legislation stated in pure wordings that the person creating similar mishaps should halt after similar creation. The shamefaced in the case had halted for some time also left the place. Court established that the halt should be for a reasonable period so that the onlookers could take applicable details of the creator of similar mishaps.  

Another well- established rule in Narendra Madivalapa Kheni vs Manikrao Patil & Ors. where the Supreme Court had cleared the mistrustfulness as to the timings of the submission of the names in the election. The legislation in disagreement was what did the last date of the nomination signified. The Court cleared the mistrustfulness and suggested that the wordings have to be studied altogether concerning the purpose behind the creation of similar law. Court held that it signified the end hour of that day for nominating the campaigners under the legislation in question.  

The court in Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing vs. Commissioner of Deals duty cleared another mistrustfulness with the help of the rule. The Legislation in disagreement was if the biscuits were falling under the compass of Cooked Food as per the wordings of similar legislation. The party was involved in an exertion of manufacturing and selling of Biscuits and if similar party should be tested if similar biscuits fell under the compass of cooked food.  Court established if wordings can be showing a narrow sense, also the question as to acceptance of similar sense depends entirely on the subject matter of  similar legislation in question. In the script in hand, biscuits didn't fall under the horizon of cooked food. But in  scripts where accurate words have given are straight-forward and free from vague, the court had to determine in their original sense and bring them under the  compass of the act of the Legislature by considering the subject matter considered by the Parliament.

CRITICISM- 

The golden rule of Interpretation is the well- used principle for the interpretation of  bills but there has been  review regarding its  operation.  The word “absurd” is a vague conception and arises only in a many cases where it necessary for the court to apply the golden rule of interpretation. Golden rule suffers from the same problems which were faced by the nonfictional approach i.e. lack of wider contextual understanding of “meanings”. The  maturity of the cases contain tough  scripts where touch choices have to be made between  numerous believable arguments, not  scripts in places where wordings of the legislation take you to  egregious  nebulosity.

  CONCLUSION-  

The answer to that in the conclusion, the ‘golden rule’ gives a court openings to produce exceptions given public that aren't grounded on the social subject matter under the legislation, not indeed on the consequences of the wordings made use by the law- making body, but entirely on the social and political comprehensions of the judges who deal with  similar  delicate cases.  The operation of the Golden rule in moment’s scripts is that the court uses a tool to achieve the asked results. In the rare cases where the disputed wordings are  moreover narrow or accurate and too plain to be held by the judges to be not accurate but make them applicable would shake up the court’s perception of justice, the court can if it pleases to  diverge from the original meaningful sense, hold that in making them applicable on the situations of the said case that would affect in a ‘ vague’ to which the law- making body cannot be made  responsible, and,  mentioning the ‘ golden rule,’ will work out an  inferred exception.


OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.

WRITTEN BY: ALOK CHHAPARWAL

GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK

Rounded Image

Submit Comment