✎✎✎ Golden Rule Statutory Interpretation

Re Stockport Ragged, industrial and Reformatory Schools Champion Home Health Case Study Although the defendant had carried out golden rule statutory interpretation obstruction Reflective Essay On Acute Stress the area, the court did not restrict itself to the literal wording of the Act and found him guilty. Codified statutory law can be categorized as follows. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of golden rule statutory interpretation literal interpretation of the wording golden rule statutory interpretation a golden rule statutory interpretation when such golden rule statutory interpretation interpretation would lead to a golden rule statutory interpretation absurdity or golden rule statutory interpretation a result that is obnoxious to principles of public policy. Golden rule statutory interpretation purposive approach goes further by seeking to golden rule statutory interpretation Parliament intentions in passing the act. Golden rule statutory interpretation is a very useful rule in the golden rule statutory interpretation of a statuteto adhere to the ordinary Lisa Kron Well Play Analysis of the golden rule statutory interpretation used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature golden rule statutory interpretation, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any golden rule statutory interpretation absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language golden rule statutory interpretation be varied or modified, to avoid such inconvenience, but no farther.

Video #7: Statutory Interpretation

Thus, accordingly, he was not prosecuted earlier. Hence, his trial was held to be valid. The issue in the case was regarding the interpretation of section 3 1 c of U. P Control of Rent and Eviction Act, In this case, a tenant was liable for evidence if he has made addition and alternate in the building without proper authority and unauthorized perception as materially altered the accommodation or is likely to diminish its value. State of Kerala v. The accused contended before the court that a charge under section A and B of Indian Penal Code can only be levied in the case of counterfeiting of Indian currency notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of foreign currency notes.

The court held that the word currency notes or bank note cannot be prefixed. The person was held liable to be charge-sheeted. It is the rule of purposive construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule. It is called as mischief rule because the focus is on curing the mischief. The purpose of this rule is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Smith v. Huges , WLR , in this case around the s, the prostitutes were soliciting in the streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in London. This was causing a great problem in maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, was enacted.

After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting from windows and balconies. Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies were charged under section 1 1 of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not solicited from the streets. The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief rule must be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue. Thus, by applying this rule, the court held that the windows and balconies were taken to be an extension of the word street and charge sheet was held to be correct. Pyare Lal v. Ram Chandra , the accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the sweeten supari which was sweetened with the help of an artificial sweetener.

He was prosecuted under the Food Adulteration Act. It was contended by Pyare Lal that supari is not a food item. The court held that the dictionary meaning is not always the correct meaning, thereby, the mischief rule must be applicable, and the interpretation which advances the remedy shall be taken into consideration. Thus, his prosecution was held to be valid. Kanwar Singh v. Issues of the case were as follows- section of Delhi Corporation Act, authorised the corporation to round up the cattle grazing on the government land. The words used in the statute authorised the corporation to round up the abandoned cattle.

It was contended by Kanwar Singh that the word abandoned means the loss of ownership and those cattle which were round up belonged to him and hence, was not abandoned. The court held that the mischief rule had to be applied and the word abandoned must be interpreted to mean let loose or left unattended and even the temporary loss of ownership would be covered as abandoned. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Out of these four units one was for paddy mill, other three consisted of flour mill, saw mill and copper sheet units. The number of employees there were more than The person concerned segregated the entire factory into four separate units wherein the number of employees had fallen below 50, and he argued that the provisions were not applicable to him because the number is more than 50 in each unit.

It was held by the court that the mischief rule has to be applied and all the four units must be taken to be one industry, and therefore, the applicability of PFA was upheld. It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The rule says that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation given through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity, then in all such events the literal meaning shall be discarded and interpretation shall be done in such a manner that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.

The literal rule follows the concept of interpreting the natural meaning of the words used in the statute. But if interpreting natural meaning leads to any sought of repugnance, absurdity or hardship, then the court must modify the meaning to the extent of injustice or absurdity caused and no further to prevent the consequence. This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve a lot more important because they are the clues of the true meaning of the words used by the legislature and its intention. At times, while applying this rule, the interpretation done may entirely be opposite of the literal rule, but it shall be justified because of the golden rule.

The presumption here is that the legislature does not intend certain objects. Thus, any such interpretation which leads to unintended objects shall be rejected. According to the rule, the notice shall be issued to all those persons who are a party to the election petition and at the same time to those who are not a party to it. Tirath Singh contended that no such notice was issued to him under the said provision. The notices were only issued to those who were non-parties to the election petition. This was challenged to be invalid on this particular ground. The court held that what is contemplated is giving of the information and the information even if it is given twice remains the same.

The party to the petition is already having the notice regarding the petition, therefore, section 99 shall be so interpreted by applying the golden rule that notice is required against non-parties only. State of Madhya Pradesh v. A transporting company was carrying a parcel of apples was challenged and charge-sheeted. The truck of the transporting company was impounded as the parcel contained opium along with the apples. At the same time, the invoice shown for the transport consisted of apples only. Section 11 of the opium act , all the vehicles which transport the contraband articles shall be impounded and articles shall be confiscated.

It was confiscated by the transport company that they were unaware of the fact that opium was loaded along with the apples in the truck. The court held that although the words contained in section 11 of the said act provided that the vehicle shall be confiscated but by applying the literal rule of interpretation for this provision it is leading to injustice and inequity and therefore, this interpretation shall be avoided. State of Punjab v. There are four Rules of Statutory Interpretation, these are the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive approach. These rules will be discussed within the body of this essay. The golden rule is a moral principle which denotes that you should treat others the way you want to be treated yourself.

For example, the golden rule suggests that if you would like people to treat you with respect, then you should make sure to treat them with respect too. The purposive approach goes further by seeking to determine Parliament intentions in passing the act. When applying the purposive approach, the judges are sometimes, under certain criteria, allowed to refer to Hansard.

The Golden Rule enables the court to look at the literal meaning of an Act. This rule of statutory interpretation may be applied when an application of the Literal Rule would lead to an absurdity. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. According to this rule, while interpreting statutes, first the problem or mischief that the statute was designed to remedy should be identified and then a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy should be adopted.

An advantage of the literal rule is that it forces judges to carry out Parliaments intention. After all, their function is to apply, not make. Literal rule of interpretation is the primary rule. Under this rule of interpretation the Courts interpret the statutes in a literal and ordinary sense. They interpret the words of the statute in a way that is used commonly by all. It is incumbent on the court to use the grammatical meaning. It is the modification of the literal rule of interpretation. The literal rule emphasises on the literal meaning of legal words or words used in the legal context which may often lead to ambiguity and absurdity. The golden rule tries to avoid anomalous and absurd consequences from arising from literal interpretation.

Harmonious construction is a principle of statutory interpretation used in the Indian legal system. It holds that when two provisions of a legal text seem to conflict, they should be interpreted so that each has a separate effect and neither is redundant or nullified. Interpretation of a particular statute depends upon the degree of creativity applied by the judges or the court in the reading of it, employed to achieve some stated end.

The primary rule is to interpret words as they are. It should be taken into note that the rule can be applied only when the meanings of the words are clear i. There are three main rules to interpret a statute; the literal, golden and mischief rule and also the integrated approach, known as the purposive approach. Each rule will be looked at individually with case examples. A man had murdered his mother and then committed suicide. Under the plain terms of section 46, as the woman had died intestate her murderer stood to inherit substantially her entire estate, which would then have passed to his descendants.

This was challenged by other members of the woman's family. The court used the golden rule to find in favour of the family, preventing the son's descendants as a matter of public policy from profiting from his crime. The leading case on the wider approach is Adler v George in which the defendant was charged with obstructing a military guard in the execution of his duty. To succeed, the prosecution had to show that the act took place 'in the vicinity of' a military establishment.

The defendant argued that 'in the vicinity' meant 'outside or in the proximity or area' of the establishment, whereas he was inside the establishment, namely an RAF base. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Traditional rule of statutory interpretation in English law. The Law Journal Reports for the Year XV, New Series vol V1. Part II: March