Question -20 निर्वचन के शाब्दिक अर्थान्वयन के नियम एवं स्वर्णिम नियम के अन्तर को बतलाइये।

 Explain the difference between literal rule and golden rule of interpretation.

Answer- 20

In the interpretation of statutes, the Literal Rule and the Golden Rule are two approaches used by courts to interpret the meaning of statutory provisions. Here’s a point-wise comparison of both:

Literal Rule:

1.            Definition: The literal rule of interpretation is the approach where words are given their plain, ordinary, and natural meaning, regardless of the consequences or the intention behind the statute.

2.            Principle: It assumes that the legislature means exactly what it says, and the court should apply the statute according to the literal meaning of the words used.

3.            Application: The court applies the words of the statute as they are written, even if they lead to an absurd or unjust result.

4.            Purpose: The primary purpose is to maintain the integrity of the law and ensure consistency. The legislature’s intentions are believed to be reflected in the plain language of the statute.

5.            Example: If a statute prohibits "vehicles" from entering a park, under the literal rule, the definition of "vehicle" would be strictly applied, meaning even a bicycle could be prohibited, despite its reasonable usage.

6.            Advantages: Ensures certainty and predictability in the law, as it strictly follows the text of the statute.

7.            Disadvantages: Can lead to harsh, unjust, or absurd results when the plain meaning does not align with the legislature’s intended purpose.

________________________________________

Golden Rule:

1.            Definition: The golden rule of interpretation is a modification of the literal rule. It allows courts to modify the literal meaning of the words in a statute to avoid absurd or unjust results.

2.            Principle: The golden rule permits the court to depart from the literal meaning of a provision when the application of the literal rule would result in an outcome that is unreasonable or contrary to public policy.

3.            Application: When a word or phrase in the statute is ambiguous, or when a literal interpretation would lead to absurdity, the court can interpret it in a way that aligns with the intended meaning and purpose of the law.

4.            Purpose: The goal is to give effect to the intention of the legislature, especially where the literal interpretation leads to an absurd or unjust result.

5.            Example: If a law states that "no one shall kill a human being," and someone kills a human being in self-defense, the court could apply the golden rule to interpret the statute in a way that exempts self-defense, even if the plain wording might not.

6.            Advantages: Prevents absurd or unjust outcomes, ensuring that the law is applied fairly and in a way that aligns with the broader legislative intent.

7.            Disadvantages: It can lead to judicial discretion, as the court determines what constitutes an "absurd" result, which may lead to inconsistency or unpredictability.

________________________________________

Key Differences:

Aspect   Literal Rule          Golden Rule

Meaning              Words are interpreted literally, according to their plain meaning. Words are interpreted to avoid absurd or unjust outcomes.

Application          Strict adherence to the exact wording of the statute.        Interpretation can modify the literal meaning to avoid absurdity.

Flexibility             Rigid, no flexibility even if the outcome is unreasonable.  More flexible, as it allows for modification to prevent injustice.

Use of Judicial Discretion              No judicial discretion, interpretation is purely based on the words used.        Judicial discretion is allowed to avoid absurd results.

Result    Can lead to harsh, absurd, or unjust outcomes.    Avoids absurdities and aims for justice, but can introduce inconsistency.

Both rules have their place in legal interpretation, and courts choose between them depending on the circumstances and the potential consequences of applying one rule over the other.