Q. What are the primary rules of interpretation?

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation.
Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases,
there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the
judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various rules of statutory interpretation.
These rules of statutory interpretation are divided into: primary and subsidiary rules.

Primary Rules of Interpretation: There are three main rules to interpret a statute; the literal,
golden and mischief rule and also the integrated approach, known as the purposive approach.
Each rule will be looked at individually with case examples.

Literal Rule: Literal Rule is also known as Plain Meaning Rule. This is the most important
rule of Primary Rule of Statutory Interpretation. By Literal Rule, words in the statute must be
given their plain, ordinary or literal meaning. It means that statutes are to be interpreted using the
ordinary meaning of the language of the statute unless a statute explicitly defines some of its
terms otherwise. In other words, the law must be read, word for word, and it should not divert
from its true meaning. According to this rule, when a word does not contain any definition in a
statute, it must be given its plain, ordinary, and literal meaning. If the word is clear, it must be
applied, even though the intention of the legislature may have been different or the result is harsh
or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law means. This is the
oldest of the rules of construction and is still used today, primarily because judges are not
supposed to legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the
equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to adhere to the law's literal wording.

One Example of The Literal Rule was the Fisher v Bell case (1960). Under the offensive
weapons act of 1959, it is an offence to offer certain offensive weapons for sale. Bristol
shopkeeper, James Bell displayed a flick knife in his shop window. When brought to trial it was
concluded that Bell could not be convicted given the literal meaning of the statute. The law of
contract states that having an item in a window is not an intention of sale but is an invitation to
treat. Given the literal meaning of this statute, Bell could not be convicted.
Another case of literal interpretation is the case of Whitely v. Chapple (1868) In this case the
defendant is someone who has already died. It was a statutory offence to impersonate “any
person entitled to vote” at an election. The defendant impersonated someone who was on the
electoral register but who had died before the election. Since the term ‘Ap person entitled to vote
“refers to alive person, he was acquitted as deceased persons had no right to vote in the election.

Similar interpretation has been made in case of R v Harris (1836) where the defendant bit off
his victim's nose and later bit the finger of policeman. There is and provision which states that an
act amounts to offence if it involves unlawful and malicious stab, cut or wound on any person”.
The statute made it an offence 'to stab cut or wound' the court held that for an offence to be
committed some kind of instrument need to be used since no instrument is used and teeth is not
considered as a weapon under the literal rule the act of biting did not come within the meaning of
stab cut or wound as these words implied an instrument had to be used. Therefore, the
defendant's conviction was quashed.

In Nepal the literal rule of interpretation was used by court in the case of Lokbhakta Shumsher
JBR vs RamaDevi Rajbhandari (Decision No. 6625). In this case the court decided that "
विधाविकी कानून विवित रहुन्िेल सम्म अदालतको समेत पालना गननुपने कनरा सिुमान्य वसद्धान्तको रुपमा
रहे को हुन्छ । कानूनमा भएको िैधावनक व्यिस्थालार्ु अननमान र तकुको आधारमा िस्तो हुनसक्छ र िस्तो

हुन्छ भनी तकु गरी खण्डित हुने गरी अथु गदाु विधाविकी मनसाि मनु िाने हुन्छ । संविधानले प्रवतकूलता
नठानेको र कृिाशील रहे को कानूनलाई सरल व्याख्या गदाु िस्तो अथु वनस्कन्छ सोही अथु लगाउनन पने

हुन्छ । आफ्नो अननकूल व्याख्या गरी त्यसलाई खण्डित गनु हुुँ दैन ।"

The advantage of literal rule is that it encourages the draftsmen to be precise. Similarly, it also
respects the words used by the parliament. It also prevents judges from rewriting statute law,
which only the Parliament can do.

The disadvantages of Literal Rule is that it assumes that the parliamentary draftsmen are perfect.
It ignores the limitation of language. It can lead to absurd or harsh decisions and Parliament has
to pass an amending statute.
Golden Rule: The Golden Rule is defined as the modification of literal rule by Maxwell. It is
an extension or elaboration of literal rule. The golden rule is applied when the application of
literal rule leads to absurdity. The golden rule provides that if the words used are ambiguous the
court should adopt an interpretation which avoids an absurd result. The golden rule provides that
if the words used are ambiguous, the court should adopt an interpretation which avoids an absurd
result. In Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61, Lord Wensleydale said: “… 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 that absurdity and
inconsistency, but no farther.” This became known as “Lord Wensleydale’s golden rule”.

In R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367 The court applied the golden rule and held that the word
'marry' should be interpreted as 'to go through a marriage ceremony'. The defendant's conviction
was upheld.

In Re Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89. The defendant had murdered his mother. She did not have a will
and he stood to inherit her estate as next of kin, by being her “issue”. The court applied the
golden rule and held that “issue” would not be entitled to inherit where they had killed the
deceased.

In Ram Lakhan Mahato Koiri vs Ram Bhajan Raya Yadav (DN 8994), the Supreme Court
decided that " सामान्यतः तामेली भन्नाले कननै काम सम्पन्न भैसकेको िा मनद्दाको रोहमा अब थप कननै वनर्ुि

गनु नपने गरी मनद्दा टन ङ्ग्याउने कािु भन्ने बनविन्छ । िो कानून व्याख्यासम्बन्धी शाण्डिक (Literal) व्याख्याको

वनिम हो । शाण्डिक व्याख्या िा शिको सोिो अथु गदाु कानूनको उद्दे श्य र मनसाि पूरा हुने भएमा
शाण्डिक व्याख्या नै गननुपछु । तर, कवतपि अिस्थामा शाण्डिक व्याख्याले प्रचवलत ऐन, कानून र कानूनी

वलखतका भािना र उद्दे श्य नसमेट्ने अिस्था भएमा व्याख्याको स्वर्ीम वनिमलाई अिलम्बन गननुपने ।
न्यािको रोहमा कानूनका भािना र उद्दे श्य समेट्ने गरी कानूनको सकारात्मक पक्ष, भािना र ममुलाई

भेट्टाउन कानून, फैसला िा आदे शलगाित कानूनी वलखतमा प्रिोग भएका शिहरूको समग्र
पृष्ठभूवम, भािना र ममुलाई समेत मनन् गरी शाण्डिक व्याख्याभन्दा पर गई स्वर्ीम व्याख्या (Golden Rule

of Interpretation) पवन गननु पने ।"

Mischief Rule: The mischief rule gives a judge more discretion than either the literal or the golden rule.
This rule requires the court to look to what the law was before the statute was passed in order to discover
what gap or mischief the statute was intended to cover. The court is then required to interpret the statute in
such a way to ensure that the gap is covered. The mischief rule of statutory interpretation is the oldest of the
rules. The mischief rule was established in Heydon's Case [1584]. According to Heydon's Case 1584 - the
criteria for the Mischief Rule are:

1 What was common law before the Act?

1. What was the mischief for which the existing law did not provide?
2. What remedy has Parliament decided upon?
3. Judge should make such constructions on the Act to suppress the mischief and subtle inventions and
evasions for continuance of the mischief, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act.
This rule gives the court justification for going behind the actual wording of the statute in order
to consider the problem that the particular statute was aimed at remedying. At one level it is
clearly the most flexible rule of interpretation, but it is limited to using previous common law to
determine what mischief the Act in question was designed to remedy.

In Re Sussex Peerage, it was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is
ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the court's role is to suppress the mischief the
Act is aimed at and advance the remedy.

In Dr. KI Singh Shahi Thakuri vs HMG (DN 279), it was held that " अदालतले कनन ऐनको

व्याख्या गदाु ऐनका शिको अथु तफु मात्र ध्यान नदी काननन वनमाु ताले कनन खरावबलाई हटाउन र कनन

मनसाि वलएर सो ऐन वनमाु र् गरे को हो, त्यसतफु पवन ध्यान वदनन आिश्यक हुनिान्छ।"

Purposive Rule: The purposive approach is one that will “promote the general legislative
purpose underlying the provisions” (per Lord Denning MR in Notham v London Borough of
Barnet [1978] 1 WLR 220). There will be a comparison of readings of the provision in question
based on the literal or grammatical meaning of words with readings based on a purposive
approach. In Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593, Lord Browne Wilkinson
referred to “the purposive approach to construction now adopted by the courts in order to give
effect to the true intentions of the legislature"

Purposive rule gives effect to the true intentions of Parliament. It can only be used if a judge can
find Parliament’s intention in the statute or Parliamentary material. Judges can “rewrite” statute
law, which only Parliament is allowed to do.

Apart from these rules, there are other rules such as Construction Ut Res Magis
Valeat Quam Pereat i.e it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void (e.g A contract
shall never be void where the words may be applied to any extent to make it good).; reading
words in their context, etc. These are also the part of primary rule with less significance.

References:

1. KSL Notes
2. Class Lectures
3. Different Websites