Introduction

The judiciary in India plays a huge role in ensuring the just and fair treatment of the people. Its
decisions affect people in more ways than one. This is the reason that only people with the required
level of intellect and experience are chosen to be judges in courts. We are aware of the regular
judgements of the courts where they decide upon cases involving statutory applications. Often, the
wording of a particular Section of a statute is challenged and it is the duty of the court to either
expand, restrict or modify the meaning of the term, in order to ensure justice in the case at hand. This
power of the judiciary is essential to its function of interpreting laws made by the Parliament.
Sometimes the intention of the lawmaker is ambiguous due to the usage of vague terms, and thus, it
becomes necessary for someone to correct this mistake. To aid the judges in deciding whether a term
must be interpreted in a different way and what should be that interpretation, the rules of
interpretation were created by some great minds. In this article, we shall look into what exactly the
rules of interpretation are and specifically talk about one of the main rules, i.e. the golden rule of
interpretation.  

Rules of Interpretation

As per Salmond, “interpretation is the process by which the court seeks to ascertain the meaning of
legislation through the medium of the authoritative form in which it is expressed.” The word
‘interpretation’ is derived from the Latin term “interpretari” which means to explain or understand. So
when we say judges interpret the law, we mean judges try to ascertain the true meaning of the words
used in a statute. 

It is important to note that judges do not get into the interpretation of statutes unless it is necessary.
If the language of a provision is unambiguous and clear as to the intention of the maker, the courts do
not try and modify it. Their duty to interpret arises only when the language of the provision is unclear,
vague or ambiguous. To guide the judges in using this discretion appropriately, certain principles have
been developed which we now refer to them as ‘rules of interpretation’.

The three rules of interpretation

There are three rules, the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule. 

The Literal rule

The literal rule is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the judge has to read the
statute as it is and consider the literal meaning of what’s written. It basically means to extract the
plain meaning of the text. This is why it is also called the ‘ plain meaning rule’. The first step in
interpreting anything is to read whatever is written as it is. The plain text of the statute can give an
insight into the minds of its makers. In such cases, where the true meaning can be derived from the
normal text of the statute, no modifications should be made. The end goal is to derive the one and
only meaning of the text. Thus, this rule shall be applied when the language of a provision does not
give rise to more than one meaning and is completely clear about what it deals with.

In the case of Duport Steel Ltd v. Sirs (1980), Lord Diplock observed that where the meaning of the
words in a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for judges to invent ambiguities to give
them an excuse for failing to apply the plain meaning to the case at hand because they presume it to
be unjust.

The Mischief rule

This rule originated in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is also called Heydon’s rule as it was given by Lord
Poke in that case. It is the rule of purposive construction as the purpose of the statute is most
important while applying this rule. The focus of this rule is to cure the mischief, which means to
prevent the misuse of provisions of a statute. As per this rule, the meaning of the statute should be
interpreted in a way, where there is no room for mischief. If there has been an attempt to add
mischief to a statute, then it must be weeded out using this rule.

Let’s understand this rule using an example.

In the year 1959, the Street Offences Act of the UK was enacted to prohibit prostitutes from soliciting
on the roads to the passing public. After the enactment, the prostitutes started soliciting from their
balconies and windows. As per Section 1(1) of the Act, it was an offence for an adult to solicit in a
public place for the purpose of prostitution. The prostitutes were charged under this Section as their
actions defeated the intention of the legislation. When this was challenged before the Court, it was
found that the meaning of this Section was being misinterpreted and was being taken advantage of by
the prostitutes. It applied the mischief rule of interpretation and stated that the intention of the Act
was to prevent prostitution. Thus, it expanded the meaning of the word ‘street’ and included the
balconies and windows of homes. 

The Golden rule

The golden rule is a deviation from the literal rule. It is used to modify the meaning of the absurd
term to give it a useful and apt meaning to suit the context. It is discussed in depth below.

What is the Golden Rule of Interpretation

The golden rule of interpretation was propounded in the case of Grey v. Pearson by Lord Wensleydale
in the year 1957. This is why it is also known as Wensleydale’s Golden Rule. This rule is the
modification of the literal rule. The golden rule modifies the language of the words in a statute to
successfully interpret the actual meaning of the legislation. It takes into account the context in which
the words are used so that justice can be done to the intention of the legislation. It is to be noted that
the rule can be used only when the language of the statute is ambiguous or grammatically incorrect.
Thus the judges need to be extremely careful with their interpretation and only exercise this power
when it is absolutely necessary.  

The golden rule can be applied in a narrow or a broad sense:

 Narrow approach – This approach is taken when the words in the statute are capable of
multiple interpretations. Through this approach, the judge is able to apply the meaning
which is clear and properly portrays the true intention of the statute. This approach was
used in the  R v. Allen, (1872) case.

 Broad approach – This approach is taken when there exists only one possible
interpretation of a word. In some cases, the meaning might cause absurdity. In order to
 avoid this problem, the judges can use this approach to modify the meaning of the word
but this modification should be limited and shouldn’t deviate from the actual intention of
the legislation. In Re. Sigsworth: Bedford v. Bedford (1954), this approach was used.
The golden rule of interpretation is the second step after the literal rule. As we’ve discussed, the literal
rule would apply only when the plain meaning of the word gives justice to the intention of the
legislation. When the literal rule fails due to the existence of multiple meanings of a word in the
statute, the golden rule is to be applied. 

Advantages of the Golden Rule

 An apparent advantage of the rule is that it allows the judge to modify the meaning of
words to remove absurdity and apply the modified term effectively in the case at hand.

 When the literal rule of interpretation fails to achieve clarity, the golden rule steps in to
help the court.

 It guides the judges in applying appropriate principles while interpreting the meaning of
the statute. 

 It takes away the requirement of amending the legislation to make minute changes as the
judges can do that for the Parliament. For example, in the R v. Allen case discussed above,
the Court stepped in and closed the loopholes by applying the golden rule. The
interpretation was in line with the original intention of the Parliament. Thus, no
amendments were required.

Disadvantages of the Golden Rule

 The golden rule is restricted in its use as it can be used only when the literal rule leads to
ambiguities in interpretation. Its use thus becomes limited and rare.

 It is unpredictable and lacks guidelines.

 One of the main disadvantages of the rule is that judges can twist the meaning of the
words and change the law. This would cause a disbalance in the separation of powers.

Methods of application of the Golden Rule

Some scholars have tried to lay down ways by which the meaning of the statute is to be ascertained. 

Earl T. Crawford, in his book “The Construction of Statutes”, has written that the first source of
interpretation should be sought from the words of the statute. After that, the meaning ascertained
should be examined in the context and subject matter of the enactment. If the legislative intent is still
unclear, the various external sources of assistance can be consulted. In this case, the external source
of assistance shall be the rules of interpretation. 

Austin has also contributed to the vast literature on rules of interpretation. He has divided the
interpretative process into three sub-processes:

 Finding the rule.

 Finding the intention of the legislature.

 Finding the right statutory provisions.

 Interpreting the statute in its technical sense.

 Applying the meaning to the case at hand.

In both the recommendations, the first step is to find the appropriate rule/provision and apply it to the
case at hand. If the literal meaning of the statute is appropriate, it shall be applied. It is only when the
meaning is absurd, that the golden rule of interpretation shall come into play. The court shall extend
or restrict the statute using this rule to cover the case at hand and apply the modified meaning to
come to a better judgement.

Views of eminent jurists on the Golden Rule of Interpretation

Through the years, eminent jurists have shared their thoughts about the golden rule of interpretation
either through judgements or books. 

Justice Holmes had stated that a word is not a crystal, transparent or unchanged. It is the product of
thought and has the ability to vary greatly in colour and content based on the surrounding
circumstances and the time in which it is used. Wherever the meaning of the words is uncertain, there
may be a requirement for the application of the golden rule. The court’s main purpose is to supply
justice and to do that, proper interpretation has to be made. The literal rule should be used first but if
it results in absurdity, the ordinary meaning of the word then may be modified to avoid that absurdity,
but no further. 

Lord Moulton in the case of Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositor, (1912) emphasised the
need for caution before applying the golden rule of interpretation. He stated that there exists a danger
that the rule may lead to mere judicial criticism of the correctness of the Acts of legislature. We have
to interpret the statutes based on the language used in them. Although the result of two conflicting
interpretations may guide us in making a choice between them, we can be sure that the words used
cannot be attributed to the conflicting interpretation by taking the Act as a whole and viewing it in the
context of the existing State law at that time.

The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money, (1976) stated that
the rights of the public are paramount and are to be considered superior in comparison to individual
rights. If the words of the statute are absurd in the context of the case, they should be considered
repugnant in order to apply the golden rule of interpretation.
Important case laws related to the Golden Rule of Interpretation

State of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum (1963)

Facts of the case

 The respondents were the owners of 55 bighas and 7 biswas of land in two villages.

 Their lands along with nearby lands were acquired by the appellant for his use.

 The respondents were not informed about the acquisition and were not present at the time
of the award. 

 The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 96 per acre but the respondents a
year later contended the valuation of their lands. The senior subordinate judge rejected
their application as it was already 6 months since the sale and was thus beyond the period
of limitation as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Issue of the case 

 Whether the limitation period starts from the day of sale or from the day of getting the
knowledge of the award.

Judgement 

 The Supreme Court held that the parties must first come to know the award in order to
make an application for reference under Section 18. The parties were not informed of the
award by notice.

 Since the parties got to know of the award on a later date, the limitation period for Section
18 would start from this date and not the date on which the compensation was awarded.

 In this case, the Court applied the golden rule to modify the meaning of the provision to
include the start of the limitation period from the date of receiving the notice of award.

Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar (1962)

Facts of the case 

 The appellant and his brother assaulted one person who suffered grievous injuries.
  The appellant and his brother were charged with Section 307 & Section 326, and Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively. 

 It was also found that the younger brother, 19, had no intention to cause hurt, and was
thus, only charged with Section 324.

 The appellant contended that the younger brother’s age was under 21 at the date of the
offence and thus Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be applied. 

Issue of the case

 Whether the age of the accused is to be determined on the date of the offence or the date
of the guilty verdict.

Judgement 

 The Supreme Court in this case decided that the age of the younger brother was below 21
years of age and thus, Section 6 was applicable to him.

 The Court applied the golden rule to allow the accused to claim the benefit under Section 6
of the Act by stating that the determination of age for this Section should be done on the
date of the guilty verdict and not the date of offence.

Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. (1940)

Facts of the case

 Section 154 of the Companies Act, 1929 provided the machinery for the transfer of an old
company to a new company. ‘Transfer’ includes transferring all property, rights, liabilities
and duties of the former company to the new company.

 There existed a contract of service between the appellant, Tom Nokes and the old
company.

 After the acquisition of the old company by the respondent, the transfer of all property,
rights, liabilities and duties was done. The appellant continued to work in the old company
without having knowledge of the acquisition. 

 When the appellant absented himself from work, he was held liable under Section 4 of
the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875. 

 The respondent claimed that the transfer included the contract of service under the
transfer of ‘property’. 

Issue of the case

 Whether the transfer of property includes the contract of service that previously existed
between the individual and the transferee company.
Judgement

 The House of Lords held that the benefits of the contract entered into by the employee and
the former company cannot be transferred without informing and obtaining the consent of
the employee.

 The notice of the amalgamation by the transferor or transferee company to the appellant
was essential. 

 It was also stated that while using the golden rule, the words must be given their ordinary
meaning. If the legislature desired that workers could be transferred to the new company
without their consent then it would have specifically mentioned it in the statute. But
nothing of that sort could be found in the present case. Thus, the golden rule was used in
this case to modify the meaning of the term ‘property’ by restricting it. Viscount Simon,
L.C. presented his reasoning by stating that an interpretation should be avoided if it
reduces the legislation to futility which would fail to achieve the purpose of the legislation.

 If the golden rule wouldn’t have been applied in this case, it would have led to injustice as
it would take away the consent of the workers. This would negatively affect the workers
who would be subject to frivolous penalties just like in this case.

Criticism of the Golden Rule of Interpretation 

On the face of it, the golden rule of interpretation seems like a good alternative to the literal rule. But
as per many, it has its shortcomings and sometimes these shortcomings might lead to tragic results.

The first point of criticism comes from the definition of the term ‘absurdity’. It is a vague concept.
Also, what is absurd depends on the person interpreting it. This leads to a lack of uniformity while
applying the already limited golden rule. Every judge is different and is bound to interpret things
differently. The purpose of this rule is to bring uniformity by stating that interpretation of the
provisions of a statute should not deviate from the intention of the legislation. This rule is to be
applied when the literal interpretation of the text produces ambiguous or absurd results. This is where
the problem lies. The absurdity clause to some extent eliminates the uniformity provided by the rule. 

Second, the literal, golden and mischief rules are called rules but are they really rule in the true sense
of the word? Certainly not. It is totally based on the discretion of the judges. Although they’re called
rules, none of them carries any authority independently. The judges can choose not to follow the
‘rules’ when the need clearly exists. Also, they’re all different solutions to the same problem. Thus,
there is no hard and fast rule as to which one to apply in the case at hand.

Third, due to the culmination of the above-mentioned reasons, the golden rule acts as an excuse for
the judge to deviate from the guidelines. It allows the judge to make exceptions that do not align well
with the policy behind the Act but are based on the social and political views of the judge. So the bias
of the judge can find a way to enter the scene through this power of interpretation. For example, let’s
take the prostitution case that we discussed above. There is legislation banning the use of cigarettes
in public similar to the prostitution case. A case arises before the Court and it has to now decide if the
accused is guilty of violating a particular Section of the statute. Now, if the judge personally believes
that smoking is not all that bad, he could restrict the meaning of ‘streets’ in this case. Thus, the
application of the golden rule of interpretation is dependent on the wisdom and integrity of the judges.
Conclusion 

The golden rule of interpretation is one of the better ways to strike a balance between statutory intent
and evolving societal needs. It was best described in the case of Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing
Association Limited, (1999), that there are areas of law where a clear demarcation lies between the
judiciary and the legislature. When it comes to interpretation, the intention of the legislature should
always be kept in mind. If a particular provision clearly mentions the parties concerned with it, the
judiciary for the sake of socio-legal development expands its meaning unless the intention of the
legislature says so. The judiciary cannot cross that line and perform the functions of the legislature.

Due to the possibility of errors in interpretation, the golden rule is not a perfect tool. It cannot always
be used to eliminate absurdities in the plain meaning of the statute. Due to this, several jurists have
come up with their own procedure of application of the rule to make it more efficient. The rule has
been used and modified by judges in various cases for decades and it is still in use to this date as it
has stood the test of time.