RULES OF STATUTORY

INTERPRETATION
A rule:
is that which is prescribed or laid down as a
guide for conduct or action; a governing
direction for a specific purpose; as, the rules of
various societies; the rules governing a school
etc.
There are certain general principles of
interpretation which have been applied by
Courts from time to time.
Some of the better known rules of
interpretation also referred to as the Primary
Rules of Interpretation.
A. Literal Rule
In construing Statutes the cardinal rule is to
construe its provisions literally and
grammatically giving the words their ordinary
and natural meaning. This rule is also known
as the Plain meaning rule.
According to this rule, the court should give a
literal meaning to the language used by the
legislature.
The rule is based on the principle that “a
simple preposition needs no expositor”.
This rule can be read and understood under the
following heads:
a) Statutes must be construed according to
their plain, literal and Grammatical meaning.
b) The words must be attributed with the
natural, ordinary or popular meaning which
they have in relation to the subject-matter with
reference to which and the context in which
they have been used in the statute.
c) In selecting the ordinary meaning of a word
exact meaning should be preferred to loose
meaning unless the context directs otherwise.
d) Technical words must be construed in the
technical sense only.
One of the most important rule of literal
interpretation is that—
 (a) Words should be given their ordinary meaning,
and
(b) Such meaning should be simple and natural.
In Jogeshwar Manjhi v. Ramiya Kishan A.I.R. 1997
Orissa 54—
The Orissa High Court decided that the natural
rule of interpretation is that the simple words
should be understood in simple meaning.
If any word has been defined at the start of the Act
then its meaning in respect to the Complete Act
should be taken in accordance with such definition.
(But if any word is undefined then its interpretation
can be done with the aid of the dictionary.)
In other words, the provisions have to be read word to
word and no other meaning can be given to the statute.
In case of ambiguity and in order to avoid that
ambiguity, the Act generally has “definitions”
mentioned in it. If a particular meaning is given in the
definition clause, the particular meaning shall be used
and no other meaning.
In literal rule of interpretation, the judges are bound by
the literal meaning of the words and cannot use their
judicial minds to deviate from it.
An interpretation of the statutory provision which
defeats the intent and purpose for which the statute
was enacted should be avoided.
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325
In this case Maqbool, an Indian citizen, upon returning
from an international trip brought some gold with him.
According to the Sea Customs Act, no Indian citizen was
allowed to bring any valuables such as gold and hence,
his gold was confiscated. He was then prosecuted under
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Maqbool
contended that since the gold had already been
confiscated, and that was a trial in itself. He cannot be
prosecuted under FERA, 1947 as it would amount
to double jeopardy. However, the Supreme Court held
that confiscation of gold cannot be termed as prosecution
and hence it was not a case of double jeopardy according
to the strict and literal interpretation of Article 20(2).
B. Golden Rule of Interpretation :
- The Golden rule, or British rule, is a form of
statutory interpretation that allows a judge to
depart from a word's normal meaning in
order to avoid an absurd result.
It is a compromise between the plain meaning
(or literal) rule and the mischief rule.
Like the plain meaning rule, it gives the words
of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning.
This rule is applied most frequently in a
narrow sense where there is some ambiguity
or absurdity in the words themselves.
The Golden rule of interpretation is such a rule which
disposes of ambiguity, inconsistency, unclarity,
hardship, inconvenience, injustice, etc. arose from
the language of Statute while interpreting it.
Belarpur Industries v. Union of India A.I.R. 1997 –
The Delhi Court Stated that the language used in the
statute should firstly have literal or grammatical
interpretation to materialize the intention of the
Legislature. But, if difficulties are arising in doing so,
the circumstances prevailing at the time of making
the statute should be considered to remove those
difficulties. This is the Golden Rule of Interpretation.
If the meaning of the words is at variance
with the intention of the legislature to be
collected from the statute itself and leads to
some absurdity or repugnance, then the
language may be varied or modified so as to
avoid such inconvenience, absurdity or
repugnance and no further.
The Golden Rule tries to compliment the
Literal Rule by allowing judges to change the
meaning of statutes in order to give justice.
Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R 1955 S.C. 504
The Supreme Court said that—lf the language of Statute
is clear and unambiguous then it should be given a
literal or grammatical meaning. The court can neither
add new to the Statute nor can criticize the policies of
the legislature. Court also does not have the jurisdiction
to consider the background of the Statute. However, the
court can do so when –
(a) The language used in Statute gives more than one
meaning: and
(b) The intention of the Legislature is not clear.
This is the Golden Rule of Interpretation.
C. The Mischief Rule :

It is a rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to

determine the legislator's intention.
Originating from a 16th century case (Heydon’s case)
in the United Kingdom, its main aim is to determine
the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question
has set out to remedy, and what ruling would
effectively implement this remedy.
The rules laid down in this case are also known as
Purposive Construction or Mischief Rule.
This rule of construction is of narrower application
than the golden rule or the plain meaning rule, in
that it can only be used to interpret a statute and,
strictly speaking, only when the statute was passed to
remedy a defect in the common law.
The Mischief Rule in the content of
interpretation means to prevent the misuse of
provisions of the statute.
Mischief should not have a place in the statute.
If an attempt is made to add mischief in any
statute, then it must be prevented by the
Mischief Rule.
The Rule of Mischief says that the statute
should be construed in such a way so as to
suppress the Mischief.
One of the main advantage of The Mischief
Rule is that it closes loopholes in the law and
allows laws to develop.
 Smith v. Hughes (1960) is a good example in this
context. It is based on the ‘Street Offence Act 1959’.
It provides for prohibition of inducement by
prostitutes over roads to the passing public. This act
was interpreted in such a way to misuse it by not
including the inducement by prostitutes from the
windows and balconies of their houses. But Court
said while rejecting this agreement that the
inducement by prostitutes from the windows and
balconies of their houses is also prohibited under this
act, because the purpose of this act is to prevent
prostitution, that is, protect the on going effect of
prostitution.
The Mischief Rule gives the most
discretion to judges and is suited to
specific, often ambiguous cases.
The rule allows statutes to be refined
and developed.
The rule is intended to rectify
‘mischief’ in the statute and interpret
the statute justly.
Applicability –
This rule is applicable only when the words used
are ambiguous and are reasonably capable of
more than one meaning (CIT vs. Sodra Devi).
After the words have been construed in their
context and it is found that the language is
capable of bearing only one construction, the
rule in Heydon’s case ceases to be applicable and
the rule of Literal Interpretation comes into play.
Heydon’s rule is applicable in 2 stages i.e., the
above points has to be considered at 2 stages:
1: To ascertain the plain meaning and primary
meaning of the statute; and
2: When the court reaches the conclusion that
there is no plain meaning.
C. Rule of Harmonious Construction:
According to this rule, when two or more
provisions in an enactment cannot be reconciled
with each other, they should be interpreted in such
a manner that effect is given to all such provisions.
When there is a doubt about the meaning of the
words used in a statute, they should be understood
in a manner consistent with the (i.e., harmonize)
subject of the enactment and the object of the
legislature.
Importance should not be attached to a single
clause in one section overlooking the provisions of
another section.
If it is impossible to avoid inconsistency, the
provision which was enacted or amended later in
point of time must prevail.
The Rule of Harmonious Construction is
applicable only when:
i) There is a real and not merely apparent
conflict between the provisions of an Act; and
ii) One of such provision has not been made
subject to the other i.e., one provision is not
made dependent on the other.
Secondary Rules of Interpretation –

Rule of Ejusdem Generis :

means "of the same kind and nature”.
This rule provides that where words of specific
meaning are followed by general words, the
general words will be construed as being
limited to persons or things of the same
general kind or class as those enumerated by
the specific words.
For the application of this rule, there has to be
a distinct genus or category.
**Example: “expression – bread, butter, jam,
etc.”**
This maxim is used in order to strike
a balance between general and
specific words.
The doctrine enables a court to
ascertain the intention of legislature
when intention is not clear.
It is important that generic words
should follow specific words in the
very same clause or sentence.
This maxim should not be invoked
where intention of legislature is clear
Non-Applicability:
1. The general principle of ‘Ejusdem generis’
applies only where the specific words are all the
same nature. When they are of different
categories, then the meaning of the general
words shall not be influenced by specific words.
2. The rule of Ejusdem generis has no inverse
application that is to say the rule does not apply
when specific words follow a general term.
If the specific words do not belong to a distinct
genus, this rule is inapplicable.
3. The courts have a discretion whether to apply
the ‘Ejusdem generis’ doctrine in particular
case or not.
Noscitur a Sociis:
Noscitur a Sociis literally means “It is known
from/by its associates”.
The meaning of a word is known by the
company it keeps – to be judged by the
company it keeps.
According to this rule, the associated words
take meaning from one another.
The doctrine of "noscitur a sociis" is
applicable only when there is a doubt about
the meaning which is to be attached to words
in a statute.
The meaning of a doubtful word may be
determined by referring to the meaning of its
accompanying words.
This doctrine is useful when one
term is tried to be interpreted
along with words grouped together
with two or more terms that have
similar meanings.
Under this doctrine, the
questionable meaning of a word or
doubtful words can be derived from
its association with other words
Limitation of the application of this
doctrine:
i) Where the intent of the legislature is
clear or the meaning of the word is not
doubtful, the maxim has no application.
ii) Where the words in a statute have been
given a wider connotation intentionally,
the doctrine cannot be invoked to narrow
down the meaning of words used in the
definition of terms in the statute.
Reddendo Singula Singulis:
Latin term that means by referring each to each;
referring each phrase or expression to its
corresponding object.
In simple words “reddendo singula singulis”
means that when a list of words has a modifying
phase at the end, the phrase refers only to the
last. It is a rule of construction used usually in
distributing property.
When a list of words has a modifying phrase at
the end, the phrase refers only to the last word,
e.g. fireman, policeman, and doctors in a hospital.
Here, “in a hospital” only applies to doctors and
not to fireman or policeman.
The Reddendo singula singulis principle concerns
the use of words distributively.