The Golden Rule is a modification of grammatical interpretation. It says that ordinarily the court must find out the intention of the legislature from the words used in the statute by giving them they’re their natural meaning but if this led to absurdity, repugnance, inconvenience, hardship, injustice or evasion, the court must modify the meaning to such an extend and no further as would prevent such a consequence. On the face of it, their rule solves all problems and is, therefore, known as the golden rule. Further, since the literal meaning is modified to some extend this approach is called Modifying approach of Interpretation. This rule, therefore, suggests that consequences or effects of interpretation deserves lot more importance because these are clues to the true meaning of a legislation.
There is a presumption that the legislation does not intend certain objects and any construction leading to any of such objects deserves to be rejected. The court when faced with more than one possible interpretation of an enactment is entitled to take into consideration the result of each interpretation in a bid to arrive at the true intension of the legislation. There may be cases where even though literal interpretation may include certain consequences not intended by the legislature, the court shall not so interpret because some lawful justification is available far doing so. Similarly, an act may be construed within a limited scope even though the language does not specifically so provide. In certain other situation, the statute may be given a restricted interpretation on the basis of the object of it although the grammatical construction would carry its operation for beyond. Whenever more than one construction is possible, that which seems reasonable will be given effect to. The court will try to avoid un reasonable, inconvenient and anomalous results. When the consequence of an interpretation is manifest injustice, the court will generally hesitate to give effect to it. Similarly, a construction leading to an absurd conclusion will be rejected. The duty of the court is to suppress all evasions for the continuance of the mischief which the statute is supposed to control.
In Tirath Singh vs. Bachitter Singh the appellant argued that it was obligatory under section 99 (1)(a) of the representation of people’s Act, 1951 for the tribunals to record names of all persons who had been guilty of corrupt practices including parties and non- parties to the petition and that under the proviso notice should be given to all persons named under section 99(1)(a)(ii). He being a party to the petition was, therefore entitled to a fresh notice. The Supreme Court Said that such an interpretation will lead to an absurdity and held that proviso along with clause (b) thereto and the setting of the section pointed out that is the notice is complated only against non – parties to the petition.
- The Interpretation of Statutes – Prof. T. Bhattacharyya – Central Law Agency
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org