LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF LAWS

Basic Ideas

• The most important rule when judges interpret laws is to understand the law by looking at the exact
words used.

• This means judges focus on what the law actually says, without adding or changing anything.

• According to the principle of separation of powers, the government (executive) makes decisions, but
judges must only apply the law as written by the lawmakers (legislature).

• If judges did not follow the exact words, language might lose its clear meaning, and people would find
it hard to understand laws because judges would keep changing their meaning.

• So, judges should read the words in the law exactly as they are — using their plain, normal, everyday
meaning — even if the result seems unfair or unwanted.

MEANING OF THE LITERAL RULE

• The literal rule says that to understand what Parliament (the law-making body) meant, we should look
at the normal, everyday meaning of the words used in the law.

• If the words in the law are very clear, then there is no need to guess or think about other meanings.

• When the words in a law are clear and straightforward, the court must follow them exactly, no matter
what the result is, because the words show what the lawmakers intended.

JURISPRUDENTIAL BASIS:

• Lord Diplock said, if the words in a law are clear and not confusing, judges should not make up
fake confusion just to avoid applying the law exactly, even if the results seem bad or unfair.

• "Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius", which means if one thing is mentioned clearly in a law,
it means everything else is left out.

• "Absoluta sententia expositure non indigent" means plain words don’t need any special
explanation.

• "Verbis legis non est recedendum" means we should not stray from the exact words of the law.

SCOPE

If the words in a law are very clear and have only one meaning, then no one should guess or imagine other
meanings.
 If the law is well written and its words match exactly what it wants to achieve, it should be understood
exactly as written.

Judges must explain the law by only looking at the clear, normal meaning of the words, even if the result
seems strange, unfair, or doesn’t make sense.

The court should not worry about whether the lawmakers made a mistake or created a strange rule.

Judges should focus on what the law actually says, not on what it might mean or what they wish it meant
— even if it’s a tough or difficult case.

Courts cannot change or rewrite laws, even if they think lawmakers forgot something or made an error.

If the law’s words are clear, judges don’t need to use other special rules to understand it — just stick to the
clear words.

RATIONALITY AND REASONS:

• The literal rule respects that Parliament (the law-making body) has the highest power to make laws.

• It encourages lawmakers to write laws clearly and precisely so that anyone who can read English can
understand the law easily. This helps avoid confusion and fewer legal fights.

• When reading a law, we should assume the words are used in their normal, everyday meaning.

• Laws are made up of exact words, and those words are very important because they form part of the
law itself.

LEADING CASES

In Nelson Motis v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1981), the Supreme Court said that if the words of a
law are clear and can only mean one thing, then the court must follow that meaning no matter what the result
is.

In Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma (AIR 2013 SC 30), the Supreme Court said that even if a
law causes difficulties or problems, the court must still apply it exactly as it is written. Courts cannot change
the meaning of a law just because it causes hardship.

Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh

• The main question was about how to understand Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

• The court said that the word “shall” means the police must record the First Information Report (FIR);
they don’t have the choice to investigate first before recording it.
 • The word “information” in the law doesn’t have any condition, so the police have to record any
information given to them, even if they think it might not seem reasonable.

• So, the court simply followed the plain, literal meaning of the words in the law.

Union of India v. Sankarchand Himatlal Sheth, the Supreme Court said:

• If the words in a law are clear and easy to understand, no one should add or change words in the law
to make it mean something else.

US CASES

In Abley v. Dale (1851), the court said that if the words in a law are clear and have only one meaning, the
court must follow that meaning — even if the result seems silly or unfair.

In Fisher v Bell, the court used literal interpretation to decide a case about selling knives. The shopkeeper
had put a knife in his shop window. The court said this was not an “offer” to sell, but just an “invitation to
treat” (like an invitation to negotiate). So, according to the exact legal meaning, the shopkeeper did not
actually offer to sell the knife just by showing it in the window. Because of this, the person’s conviction was
canceled.

ADVANTAGES

• It makes the law clear and certain — people know exactly what the law means.
• It tells everyone that if the law’s words are simple and clear, they should be taken exactly as they are,
so people can trust the law.
• It treats everyone equally because it follows the exact words without giving special treatment.
• It helps judges apply the law strictly and fairly without adding their own opinions.

LIMITATIONS:

• Sometimes judges don’t know all the facts about a situation.

• Sometimes it’s not clear what the law’s goal or purpose really is.

• It’s not always easy to decide if a word is really “plain” or simple to understand.

• This rule doesn’t work well for new laws about society and social problems.

• It can’t easily adjust to the changing needs of a growing and changing society.

DEFECTS OF THE LITERAL RULE:

• Logical Defect: Sometimes the law’s words can be unclear, contradictory, or incomplete.
 • Absurdity or Irrationality: Following the exact words can sometimes lead to silly or unreasonable
results.

• Ignoring Language Rules: The rule doesn’t always consider how language works in real life, like
idioms or special meanings.

• Ignoring History: It doesn’t take into account the background or reason why the law was made.

PMR TRICKS:

• Artful Text Selection: Find exactly which part of the law or text needs to be understood or explained.

• Elastic Co-Text: Look at the words right around the part you are trying to understand because they
help explain its meaning.

• The Shifting Meaning Game: The “plain meaning” can mean different things — like the dictionary
meaning, what it looks like on the surface, what the writer meant, or how the audience understands it.

• It Must Be Plain To You If It's Plain To Me: If the meaning seems clear to one person, it should be
clear to others too.

• The Inherent Meaning Illusion: People think a written text has one fixed meaning that never changes,
no matter who reads it or when. But actually, meaning can change depending on the reader and context.

• Abandoning Ship: This means giving up on trying to find one clear meaning when the text is too
confusing or unclear

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

• Sometimes, if the court follows the exact, literal meaning of the words in a law, it might lead to a result
that is unfair or doesn’t make sense.

• To avoid this, the judge can slightly change how the words are understood to make sure the law does
what it was really meant to do. This might mean not following the exact words if that would cause a
problem.

• If it’s clear what the law was trying to achieve, the court won’t let a mistake or unclear wording in the
law stop it from working properly.

• Usually, the court looks at the law as a whole, not just one sentence, to understand what it really means.

• If following the literal meaning leads to a shocking or unfair result, the court will try to find another
meaning that is fairer and makes more sense.

EVOLUTION OF THE GOLDEN RULE:

• The Golden Rule was earlier called the Logical Rule of Interpretation because it tries to make the
meaning of the law logical and sensible.

• The name “Golden Rule” was first used by Lord Wensleydale.

• This rule says that if following the exact, literal meaning of the words in a law leads to a silly or absurd
result, then the court should try to find a different meaning that avoids that nonsense.

• Lord Wensleydale clearly explained this idea in a famous case called Grey v Pearson (1857).

MEANING OF THE GOLDEN RULE:

• Usually, judges follow the normal, everyday meaning of the words in a law.

• But if sticking to that normal meaning causes something silly, impossible, or conflicts with the rest of
the law, then the judge can change the meaning a little bit.

• This change is only done to avoid that silly or confusing result — not more than that.

MAXIM RELATED TO THE GOLDEN RULE:

• Reductio ad absurdum means “reducing something to absurdity.”

• It means that when a law can be understood in two ways, the court should choose the meaning that
avoids a silly or ridiculous result.

• The law does not accept or care about something that leads to nonsense or something meaningless.

• Such absurd or meaningless results are ignored because they don’t really matter in law.

SCOPE OF THE GOLDEN RULE:

• When the usual, normal meaning of words in a law causes a clear problem or goes against the main
purpose of the law, or leads to something silly or inconvenient, the court can change the meaning a
bit—even change the sentence structure—to fix it.

• The court can ignore normal grammar rules, give unusual meanings to words, or even leave out some
words if it seems clear that the lawmakers didn’t mean what the words literally say. These changes are
just corrections to show the true meaning.

• The court’s job is to make sense of the law as a whole, looking at all parts together, and interpret it in
a way that fits the purpose of the law.

• Judges can reject the ordinary, literal meaning if it causes unfair, silly, or conflicting results and choose
a different meaning that avoids these problems.
• Fitzgerald in the case Bradlaugh v. Clarke said that if the literal meaning causes something absurd or
contradicts the purpose of the law, then the court should adjust the meaning just enough to avoid those
problems—but not more than necessary.

• Lord Denning said that if the literal meaning makes the law hard or impossible to apply, the court
should make small changes to make the law workable.

ABSURDITY:

• An absurd word, phrase, or idea means something that is silly, unreasonable, or doesn’t make sense.

• It’s the opposite of what the law really means and can lead to unfair or illogical decisions.

• In the case Grey v. Pearson, the court said: Normally, we follow the usual meaning of words, but if
that meaning causes something silly or absurd, then we can change the meaning a little bit to avoid
that silly result.

Polester & Co. Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax case point in easy language:

• The Supreme Court said that usually, the exact words of a law are very important and followed strictly.

• But sometimes, in rare and special cases, the court can look beyond the exact words to understand
what the lawmakers really meant.

• This happens only when following the exact words would cause something unfair, wrong, cruel, or
silly.

• Or when the literal meaning goes clearly against the main purpose or policy of the whole law.

M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa in easy language:

• The court said that when there are two possible meanings of a law, and one of them is too narrow and
would stop the law from working properly, the court should NOT choose that narrow meaning.

• Instead, the court should pick the broader or stronger meaning that helps the law achieve its real
purpose.

• The idea is that the lawmakers want the law to work effectively, so the court should avoid
interpretations that make the law useless, unfair, or cause strange problems.

• This approach was also mentioned in the case Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dixitulu.

In short: When deciding the meaning of a law, judges should choose the meaning that makes the law work
well and avoids unfair or silly results.

S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabhiraman in easy language:

• The Supreme Court said that laws should be interpreted in a way that avoids silly or unfair results
whenever possible.

• The court should try to stop any harm or problems that could come from a wrong or unreasonable
interpretation of the law.

INCONSISTENCY WITH THE INTENTION:

• According to Black’s Legal Dictionary, inconsistency means two things that completely contradict
each other — both cannot be true at the same time.

• If one part is accepted, the other part has to be ignored or dropped.

• The law says that when there is a main rule and a proviso (a special condition), both should be read
and understood together in a way that makes sense.

• The goal is to interpret them so that the purpose of the law is properly achieved without conflict.

In short: If two parts of a law seem to clash, judges try to understand them together so the law works as
intended and doesn’t contradict itself

Mohan v. State of U.P. in easy language:

• The Supreme Court said that if a law can be understood in two different ways, the court should pick
the meaning that helps the law work smoothly and fits well with the Constitution.

• The court should avoid the meaning that causes silly results, practical problems, or makes important
existing laws useless.

In short: When there are two meanings, choose the one that keeps the law working well and avoid the one
that causes problems or confusion.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Azad Bharat Finance Co. in easy language:

• The Supreme Court said the High Court was correct to understand the law as giving permission
(allowing something) rather than forcing it to be done.

• Just because a law uses the word “shall” doesn’t always mean it is mandatory or must be done.

• Whether “shall” means must or may depends on the context and situation in the law.

In short: The word “shall” in a law doesn’t always mean something is compulsory; it depends on how and
where it is used.