In this article you will learn about the Literal Rule in Interpretation of Statutes.
Introduction
Though the word interpretation appears to originate from the Latin term interpretari meaning to explain or to understand, every judge must be sure that the statute produced by them is interpreted in a way that contains the idea it has been meant for.
The aim of interpretation is always to establish the meaning of a statute, to identify the defect it is intended to remove, and to bring into effect the remedy it seeks to promote. The basic principles of interpretation require that the words of a statute be read and understood as meaning what they say. The literal rule is the first rule the judge would apply. Some jurists call the literal rule the grammatical rule.
Meaning of Literal Rule of Interpretation
It's based on the legal maxim "a verbis legis non est recedendum" which means there should be no departure from the word of law. According to the literal rule, the judge must read what the statute literally means, that is, in its simple plain meaning without an indication of ambiguity. The literal-rule school of interpretation, however, believes that the words themselves best convey the intention of the lawgiver.
Interpretation generally refers to the study of any act during which the courts try to ascertain the purpose of the Legislature through the medium of its authoritative form or representative. In the literal rule of interpretation, the law must be taken as it is, and judges cannot go beyond litera legis. The literal interpretation is a means for ascertaining the ratio legis of the statute.
The literal rule denotes that the intention of the parliament while drafting the statute somehow became shaped in the common and plain words used. Justice Jervis illustrated the meaning of the 'literal rule' in Abley v Gale. Lord Diplock explained in Duport Steel Ltd v Sirs that: "In cases where the meaning of statutory words is plain and unambiguous, it is not for the judges to manufacture fictitious ambiguities in order to justify their refusal to give effect to its clear meaning because they deem the consequences to be impractical or even unjust or immoral."
Advantages of the literal rule:
- The literal rule allows the ordinary man substantial latitude.
- The purpose of the legislature is already clear and simple.
- It upholds parliamentary supremacy regarding the administration of justice.
- With the literal rule, there is predictability.
Disadvantages of the literal rule:
- It can lead to absurdity.
- In itself, it could be very ambiguous.
- With all possible situations and circumstances pertaining to law, the literal meaning cannot always be extracted.
- It expects that it will employ unattainable perfection on the part of the draftsman of parliamentary acts.
Cases Laws relating to literal rule of interpretation of statute:
In the case of R v. Harris (1863), the defendant bit the plaintiff's nose. The statute defined the offence as 'to stab, cut or wound', but the court applied the literal rule, finding that biting was not embraced by the general understanding of stabbing, cutting, or wounding, since it was requested that an instrument be used. Consequently, the defendant was acquitted.
In the case Fisher v. Bell (1961), a price tag was placed on the flick knife displayed by the accused in his store. Under the statute, it was criminal to 'offer' such flick knives for sale. His conviction was overturned, as the goods in a shop do not, in the technical sense, constitute 'offers' but rather an invitation to treat. The court employed the literal rule of statutory interpretation in this situation.
Criticisms of literal rule of interpretation of statutes
Literal rule asserts that it rests on the false assumption that words have a constant meaning. The dictates of the literal rule of interpretation lead to injustice. There are possibilities of creating misleading precedents while deciding on cases. It is not within the scope of a Court to alter the words of the legislature, and no judicial innovations are open in this behalf. The context in which a word is used gives a proper understanding to the word.
Unequal severity or rigid following of this rule may do an otherwise injustice sometimes; it may at times lead to results which are most contrary to the general intention of the statute or common-sense. Due to the absurdity that is prevalent in literal rule of interpretation, the court may ascertain a literal meaning which was not intended by the legislature. If the court has an approach that moral values take precedence over their interpretation according to the literal rule, then there is no way for them to save the situation.
Because of changes in policies and enactments, there is not a way in this era of achieving expected content by interpreting the statute literally. Hence literal rule makes itself applicable to the present situation.
This article on Literal Rule in Interpretation of Statutes is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. Explore more articles and resources on LawStudyPoint.com. Also, check out the Dipshikha Anand YouTube channel for helpful videos and updates.