The basic rule of interpretation is the rule of literal interpretation, in which the courts take the wording of the law as it is. However, there are obvious drawbacks associated with this, as the language used in statutes is rather not simple, or in other words, the wording of most statutes tends to create ambiguity in the reader`s mind, so much so that if the natural meaning of the formulations were removed, it would lead to absurdity or ambiguity. In such a situation, changes must be made to the rule of literal interpretation. Justice in India plays a huge role in ensuring fair and equitable treatment of people. His decisions affect people in more ways than one. That is why only people with the requisite intelligence and experience are selected as judges in the courts. We are aware of the regular decisions of the courts when they decide cases concerning legal applications. The wording of a particular section of a statute is often questioned and it is for the court to extend, limit or modify the meaning of that term in order to ensure justice in the case. This judicial power is essential to its function of interpreting laws passed by Parliament. Sometimes the intention of Parliament is ambiguous because of the use of vague terms, and so it becomes necessary for someone to correct this error.

To help judges decide whether a term should be interpreted differently and what that interpretation should be, the rules of interpretation were created by great minds. In this article, we will look at what exactly are the rules of interpretation, and talk specifically about one of the main rules, namely the golden rule of interpretation. Twenty-one years later, in 1857, Lord Wensleydale repeated the rule in other words in House of Lords Grey v Pearson: The Supreme Court in State Bank of India v Shri N. Sundara Money (1976) stated that the rights of the public are of paramount importance and are superior to individual rights. If the terms of the law are absurd in the context of the case, they should be considered repugnant to apply the golden rule of interpretation. The word “absurdity” is a vague term and appears only in a few cases where it is necessary for the court to apply the golden rule of interpretation. The Golden Rule suffers from the same problems as the literal approach, i.e. Lack of a broader contextual understanding of “meanings”. Most cases contain difficult scenarios where decisions about many credible arguments have to be made, not scenarios where the wording of the law leads you to obvious ambiguities. [32] The Golden Rule approach, whereby the wording of a statute must be interpreted in such a way that no patently absurd result from the interpretation. We could call this the “reasonable interpretation” approach. General words derive their meaning from specific words.

Interpretation can be grammatical or logical. The interpretation of statutes falls within the realm of logical interpretation, although sometimes grammatical interpretation is also necessary if different circumstances are derived from the given rules. Often, words do not project meaning by themselves. The Golden Rule can be applied in a narrow or broad sense: the Golden Rule of interpretation is one of the best ways to strike a balance between legal intent and changing societal needs. In Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Limited (1999), it was best described that there are areas of law in which there is a clear distinction between the judiciary and the legislature. The intention of the legislator must always be kept in mind when interpreting. If a particular provision clearly identifies the parties concerned, the judiciary extends its scope in the interest of the development of social law, unless the legislator so provides. The judiciary cannot exceed this limit and carry out the tasks of the legislature. In this case, the judge had made some comments on the interpretation of the law, which was consistent with the English judgments cited above.

The court ruled that when a deficiency arises, a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the cartoonist. It must tackle the constructive task of finding Parliament`s intention, and then it must complement the writing to give “strength and life” to the intention of the legislator. The rule can be applied narrowly if the words themselves have some ambiguity or absurdity. [6] If there is a sign that says, “Do not use elevators in case of fire,” the literal interpretation would mean never using the elevator while it is burning. However, this interpretation is absurd and what the sign is really trying to convey is to prevent the use of elevators when there is a fire nearby. One of the main tasks of the judiciary is the interpretation of laws. In disputes, the judiciary is administered within a framework created by law, and this legal framework includes the Constitution, statutes, administrative rules and regulations.