1. Module-II
SUNDAR ATHREYA.H

2. Literal Rule of Interpretation
 According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be given or
interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning.
 The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making
any provision it has been expressed through words and thus, are to be
interpreted according to the rules of grammar.
 The rule is based on the concept that the words used in the statute are
true reflection of the intention of the Statute.
 Please refer to the fictitious case of Johny’s case developed by Leeds
Beckett Law school ( As mentioned in the previous module).
 The discussion relating to “Pound of flesh” as mentioned in Merchant of
Venice.

3. Advantages of Literal Rule
 The literal rule enables the common man to understand the statue.
 The intent of the legislature is simple and clear.
 The literal rule respects the parliamentary supremacy in administration of
justice.
 Under literal rule the law is quite predictable.

4. CIT V. Keshab Chandra Mandal
 The case relating to the signature made by the the representative of the
Income assesee and is it valid?
 The Counsel of the appellant contended that the Court should only give
effect only to the plain meaning of the words in the statute and the rules
in question. By paying attention to the plain reading of the intention of the
legislature can be clearly indentified that the return of an individual
assessee is needed to be signed by himself personally and not by
someone else as his agent.

5. Golden Rule of Interpretation
 This rule originated from the pen of Lord. Wensleydale.
 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 Golden Rule was created to primarily remove the difficulties faced when
one indulges in literal rule of Interpretation.
 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.
 This rule is a departure made from the literal rule of interpretation.

6. Golden Rule of Interpretation
 The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to
unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to
avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.

7. Golden Rule of Interpretation
 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company
 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. It is pertinent to mention
that the employees of the company were indulging in the trade of opium
without the knowledge of the owner of the Vehicle.
 The Bone of contention of the case was related to Sec 11 of the Opium Act,
and the court had to interpret if the terminology “Shall” mentioned in the
statute meant Must or can it be interpreted to mean “ May”.
 The court in the case in hand, chose to stretch beyond the literal application of
the Statute and stated that the term “Shall” meant in the statute can be
interpreted to mean may.

8. Golden Rule of Interpretation
 State of Punjab v. Quiser Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, a period of
limitation was prescribed for, under section 18 of land acquisition act,
1844, that an appeal shall be filed for the announcement of the award
within 6 months of the announcement of the compensation. Award was
passed in the name of Quiser Jehan. It was intimated to her after the
period of six months about this by her counsel. The appeal was filed
beyond the period of six months. The appeal was rejected by the lower
courts.
 It was held by the court that the period of six months shall be counted
from the time when Quiser Jehan had the knowledge because the
interpretation was leading to absurdity. The court by applying the golden
rule allowed the appeal.

9. Mischief Rule
 Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s case in 1584.
 This rule is often confused with the Golden rule but there are certain
differences between both.
 Mischief rule primarily aims at find a remedy for the mischief/ malice which
has occurred. ( The Fugitive Economic offenders Act)
 The mischief rule follows the following factors which are laid down in the
Haydon’s case
 What was the common law before the making of an act.
 What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.
 What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to
cure the disease of the commonwealth.
 The true reason of the remedy.

10. Mischief Rule
 Smith v. Huges,
 In the case in hand, 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, 1959 was enacted. After the
enactment of this act, the offenders chose an escape rout and solicited 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.
 Would you hold them liable for the Act? If so how?
 If you are a proponent of the literal rule you will not be able to punish them under the
Act.
 Here you have to look at the objective/ mischief for which the Act was created and then
apply the Act.

11. Mischief Rule
 Corkery v. Carpenter
 The respondent in the case was driving a bicycle when he was under the
influence of the Alcohol.
 Sec. 12 of the Licensing Act of 1872 made it an offence to be drunk while
being incharge of the carriage.
 Can you make the personal liable for being drunk while handling the
cycle?
 If you apply Mischief rule?- Yes.
 The factors which are created in Haydon’s case are to be applied.

12. Rule of purposive construction
 The purposive approach sometimes referred to as purposive construction,
purposive interpretation, or the "modern principle in construction" is an
approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which
common law courts interpret an enactment (that is, a statute, a part of a
statute, or a clause of a constitution) in light of the purpose for which it
was enacted.

13. Rule of purposive interpretation
 K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer
 This is another important judgment of the Supreme Court, where a great use
of the rule of Purposive interpretation was made to save an innocent assessee
from the rigours of the Income Tax law. In this case, an assessee sold a house,
purchased by him in 1958 at the price of Rs 16,500, in 1965 at the same price
of Rs16,500. In this regard, the tax authorities had fixed the market price of the
property at Rs 65,000 and had alleged that the assessee had understated or
concealed the consideration actually received by him.
 The question that was involved in the present case was with respect to the
interpretation of Section 52(2) of the Income Tax Act. On a plain reading of the
clause, the only condition for attracting the applicability of that provision was
that the fair market value of the capital asset transferred, on the date of
transfer, exceeds the full value of the consideration

14. Rule of purposive interpretation
 Once the Income Tax Officer became satisfied that this condition existed, he
could proceed to invoke the section.
 The Court, however, stated that such literal construction of the section was not
acceptable. The section had to be interpreted with respect to the object and
purpose, the legislature had in view, in enacting the provision and the context
of the setting in which it occurred.
 The Court, however, stated that such literal construction of the section was not
acceptable. The section had to be interpreted with respect to the object and
purpose, the legislature had in view, in enacting the provision and the context
of the setting in which it occurred. In order to ascertain the intention of the
legislature the Court, took into consideration the speech of the Finance
Minister, wherein it was stated by him that Section 52(2) was brought to deal
with such cases where the actual consideration received for the transfer was
“considerably more” than that declared or showed by the assessee, it was not
to strike at honest and bona fide transactions.

15. Harmonious construction
 The term harmonious construction refers to such construction by which harmony or oneness amongst
various provisions of an enactment is arrived at.
 When the words of statutory provision bear more than one meaning and there is a doubt as to which
meaning should prevail, then such meaning should be adopted by which the words best harmonize with
the subject and the subject of the enactment.
 n the land mark case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) the supreme court laid down five principles of
rule of harmonious construction:
 the courts must avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the
contradictory provisions.
 the provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another unless the court,
despite all its efforts, is unable to find a way to reconcile their differences
 when it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the courts must
interpret them in such a way so that effect is given both the provisions as much as possible.
 courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provisions to useless number or dead is
not harmonious construction.
 to harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.

16. Harmonious construction
 This rule is employed by the Court to resolve the conflict between two
different provisos or clauses in one provision.
 The manifesting example of harmonious construction is MSM Sharma’s
case where the court constructed 19(1)(a) and Art. 194 of the Indian
Constitution.