It is the modification of the literal rule of interpretation. The literal rule emphasises on the literal meaning of legal words or words used in the legal context which may often lead to ambiguity and absurdity. The golden rule tries to avoid anomalous and absurd consequences from arising from literal interpretation. In view of the same, the grammatical meaning of such words is usually modified. The court is usually interested in delivering justice and in order to foresee the consequences of their decisions the golden rule is usually applied. This rule of interpretation aims at giving effect to the spirit of the law as the mere mechanical and grammatical meaning may not be sufficient.
Whenever the grammatical construction cannot be given without any doubt only then shall the golden rule of interpretation be applied bearing in mind the consequences of the decision given. Language of the law is usually an external manifestation of the intention of the legislature underlying the law for which the golden rule is used. This rule of interpretation is used on the basis of discretion of the judges on giving due consideration to the consequences of the judgment given by them. An example of the same is S. 125 of the CrPC which deals with maintenance given to women. The court while interpreting the term ‘wife’ included those women who have entered into bigamy, talakshuda women and divorced women. The court has stated that even though a woman may have relinquished her rights on divorce, she may claim maintenance u/s 125 as she will she be regarded as a ‘wife’ 10 years after such divorce. Further, in the case of Chandrima Das the courts interpreted that Article 21 shall be available to non-citizens as well as citizens.
Justice Holmes stated, “A word is not crystal, transparent and unchanged. It is the skin of the living thought and it may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which the word is used.”
Further, in the case of Kartar Singh v. S.O. Punjab under the rent control act while interpreting ‘the landlord requires his land for his bona fide own use’, the courts stated that that his own use would include the even the requirements of the landlord’s son’s use.
Thus, through this rule of interpretation, it becomes evident that, the text of law along with the context in which it is applied, must be given due consideration.
Post Contributed By:
Abhishek Bhargava
Indian Institute of Legal Studies
