LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

The word “interpretation” refers to the act of explaining, elucidating, or understanding the meaning of something. It involves making sense of information, whether it’s spoken words, written text, data, behavior, or artistic expression. Interpretation is essentially the process of assigning meaning and significance to something that might not be immediately clear or has multiple possible meanings.

Meaning of Literal Rule of Interpretation

The literal rule of interpretation, also known as the plain meaning rule, is a fundamental principle in statutory interpretation. It dictates that when interpreting a statute, the words used by the legislature should be given their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meaning. If the language of the statute is clear, unambiguous, and leads to a sensible result, then the courts should apply that meaning directly, without resorting to any external aids or considering the purpose or object of the legislation.

The judge’s role is primarily to read and understand the statute as it is written, assuming that the legislature has expressed its intention clearly through the words it has chosen.

Essentials of Literal Rule:

1. Focus on the Text: The primary focus is solely on the words and phrases used in the statute.
2. Ordinary Meaning: Words are to be understood in their everyday, common sense meaning, as they would be understood by a layperson.
3. Grammatical Meaning: The grammatical structure and syntax of the sentences are to be followed.
4. No External Aids (Initially): If the meaning is clear on the face of the statute, there is no need to refer to legislative history, parliamentary debates, or other extrinsic materials.
5. Sensible Result: The literal interpretation should not lead to an absurd, unreasonable, or unjust outcome. If a plain reading produces such a result, courts may be inclined to consider other rules of interpretation.

Advantages of Literal rule

1. Respect for Parliamentary Supremacy: This rule adheres strictly to the words enacted by the legislature, the supreme law-making body. It upholds the principle of separation of powers by preventing judges from encroaching on the legislative function and creating law under the guise of interpretation.
2. Promotes Certainty and Predictability: By focusing on the plain meaning of the words, the literal rule makes the law more predictable. Individuals and businesses can understand their rights and obligations by simply reading the statute, leading to greater certainty in legal dealings.
3. Ensures Objectivity and Neutrality: It minimizes the scope for judges’ personal biases, prejudices, or policy preferences to influence the interpretation of statutes. The focus remains on the objective meaning of the language used.
4. Encourages Precision in Drafting: The strict application of the literal rule can incentivize the legislature to be more precise and clear in its drafting of statutes to avoid ambiguities and unintended interpretations.
5. Accessibility to the Common Person: When laws are interpreted according to their ordinary meaning, they are more easily understood by the general public, promoting transparency and reducing reliance solely on legal experts for comprehension.
6. Reduces Litigation: Clear and predictable laws, resulting from literal interpretation, can potentially reduce the volume of litigation arising from disputes over the meaning of statutory provisions.
7. Acts as a Primary Rule: The literal rule serves as the foundation of statutory interpretation. Courts generally begin by applying this rule, and only resort to other rules when the literal meaning leads to absurdity, ambiguity, or inconsistency.

Disadvantages of Literal Rule

1. Ambiguity in Language: Language is inherently imperfect and can be ambiguous. Words can have multiple meanings, and sentence structures can be unclear. The literal rule may struggle in such cases.
2. Absurdity: A strict application of the literal rule can sometimes lead to absurd, unjust, or unintended outcomes that the legislature could not have possibly intended.
3. Ignoring Legislative Intent: Critics argue that the literal rule can sometimes defeat the true purpose and object of the legislation by focusing solely on the words without considering the broader context or the mischief the statute was intended to remedy.
4. “Golden Rule” as a Modification: To address the issue of absurdity, a modification known as the “golden rule” evolved. This rule allows the court to depart from the literal meaning if it leads to an absurd result and to adopt an interpretation that avoids such absurdity, provided that the alternative interpretation is also a possible meaning of the words.

Case Laws

Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy

Facts: The Appellant was an admirer and follower of Jagaduru Shankaracharya. A World Hindu Religious Conference was held at Patna, and Shankaracharya took part in it. He observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and added that no law could come in its way. He was also believed to have walked out while the National Anthem played at the event.
During the Calling Attention Motion, Defamatory statements made against the Shankaracharya
The appellant felt scandalized and filed a suit against Shri Sanjiva Reddy (former Speaker of the Lok Sabha), Shri Y. B. Chavan (Home Minister), and three members of Parliament for defamation, claiming damages of Rs. 26000. However, the High Court rejected the complaint, stating that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
Issue: Whether what was said was outside the discussion on a Calling Attention Motion?
Judgement: Court said that in the article, the word “anything” is wide and is equivalent to everything. The word “in Parliament” which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament.
That anything said in during the course of the business of Parliament will be immune from proceedings in any Court.
And in the present case, the parliament was in sitting and its business was being transacted when the ministers made those comments. So, following Art. 105 of the constitution, the courts have no say in the matter. Hence, the decision under the appeal was held to be correct and the appeal was dismissed.

Jugalkishore v. Raw Cotton Co. 

Facts: Habib & Sons filed a summary suit against Jugalkishore for the recovery of Rs. 7113 with 6 % p.a. interest which was due by him to the firm. During the pendency of the suit, the business transferred to Raw Cotton Co. and all of its assets and debts. One of book debts was the subject matter of the suit, but the suit or decree to be passed in the suit was mentioned in the transfer document.
The respondent did not take any step to get themselves substituted as plaintiffs in place of Habib & Sons but allowed the suit to continue in the name of original plaintiff. A decree was passed in favour of plaintiff against the appellant. The respondent filed an application for execution of the decree under 21 Rule 11.
Issue: Whether the Respondent company can claim to be the transferees of the decree within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 16?
Judgement: Court observed that the transfer in writing of a property which is the subject matter of a suit without in terms transferring the decree passed or to be passed in the suit does not entitle the transferee to apply for execution of the decree by an assignment in writing. If by reason of any provision of law, statutory or otherwise, interest in property passes from one person to another, there is a transfer of the property by operation of law.
The expression under section 146, “save as otherwise” means a person cannot make an application under section 146 if other provisions are applicable to it. Order 21 Rule 11 contemplates that actual transfer by an assignment in writing of a decree after it is passed.Court held that respondent as the transferee of the debt which was the subject matter of the suit, were entitled to make an application for execution of the decree under section 146 as person claiming under the decree-holder.

Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Asstt. S.T.O.

Facts: Ramavtar, a businessman, deals in selling the betel leaves. The Sales Tax Officer under CP Berar & Sales Tax Act imposed a tax on betel leaves, but the petitioner argued that it is a vegetable and no tax will be imposed under section 6. He said that the imposition of tax is an infringement of his rights.
Item 6 is for Vegetables and Item 36 is for Betel leaves. The Schedule was amended in which item 36 was omitted and thus it is exempt from tax as they are vegetables.
Issue: whether betel leaves should be considered “vegetables” under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. If so, the petitioner would be liable for sales tax on the sale of betel leaves?
Judgement: The court made a literal interpretation of the word “vegetable” that vegetables can be understood in common parlance as classes of vegetable matter that are grown in a kitchen garden and can be used for the table.
Legislature’s intention for not exempting betel leaves from the imposition of tax by using distinct items, i.e., items 6 and 36.
The court referred cases like Kokil Ram & Sons vs The state of Bihar where the court stated that vegetables meant plants cultivated for food and Pans are not foodstuffs. The court held that betel leaves are not exempt from tax because it is not a vegetable that can be grown in a kitchen garden and can be used for the table.

State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed

Facts: The Sales Tax Authorities levied sales tax on “green ginger” sold by the respondents, taking the view that inasmuch as green ginger is used to add flavour and taste to food. It is not “vegetable commonly known as subji, tarkari or sak”. A writ petition challenging the validity of the orders of assessment was allowed by the Calcutta High Court which held that green ginger is vegetable within the meaning of that expression as used in Item 6 of the First Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act,1941.
Issue: Whether green ginger falls within the category of goods described as “vegetables, green or dried, commonly known as sabji, tarkari, or sak” in item 6 of schedule 1 to the Bengal Finance Act, 1941?
Judgement: Court referred many cases, one of them was Grenfell vs R.C, in which it was held that a statue cannot be construed in technical manner but in a popular sense.
Court held that green ginger is a vegetable grown in a kitchen garden and used for the table. It is an item sold by vegetable vendor and both the vegetable vendor who everyday deals in vegetables.
RAilway authorities also treated green ginger as vegetable for the purpose of railway tariff. Court held that green ginger is vegetable and hence exempt from tax.