Skip to main content

Followers

Question-04 शाब्दिक व्याख्या के नियम को निर्णीत वादों की सहायता से समझाइये।

Explain the rule of Literal interpretation with the help of decided cases.

Answer-04 The Rule of Literal Interpretation is a fundamental principle in the interpretation of statutes. It mandates that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary, and grammatical sense, without inserting any additional meaning or omitting any part unless the result is absurd or contrary to the statute's purpose. Below is a pointwise explanation along with examples from decided cases:

_______________________________________

1. Definition of Literal Interpretation

             The rule emphasizes giving the words of a statute their plain, natural, and grammatical meaning, as they are presumed to reflect the legislature's intent.

             It assumes the legislature knows the language and does not intend ambiguity.

2. Key Features of Literal Interpretation

             Focuses on the text of the statute, not external aids.

             Avoids judicial innovation or adding words to the law.

             Used when the statute's language is clear and unambiguous.

________________________________________

3. Principles Governing the Rule

             Plain Meaning Rule: Words should be given their ordinary dictionary meaning unless otherwise defined in the statute.

             Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: Express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others.

             No Addition or Omission: Courts must not add, omit, or modify the language of the statute.

________________________________________

4. Leading Decided Cases

(i) R v. Judge of the City of London Court (1892)

             Principle: Lord Esher stated, "If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them even if they lead to a manifest absurdity."

             Illustration: The court cannot deviate from the plain meaning of the words, even if it results in an inconvenient outcome.

(ii) LNER v. Berriman (1946)

             Facts: A railway worker was killed while maintaining tracks. His widow claimed compensation under a statute covering "repairing" and "relaying" tracks.

             Decision: The court denied the claim, as "maintenance" did not fall under "repairing" or "relaying."

             Importance: The decision strictly adhered to the literal meaning of the words.

(iii) State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese (1987)

             Facts: The issue was whether counterfeit currency notes fell within the ambit of "documents" under the statute.

             Decision: The court held that the plain language of the statute excluded counterfeit notes.

             Importance: Demonstrates the application of literal meaning.

(iv) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

             Context: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that while interpreting constitutional amendments, the plain and natural meaning must be followed unless it affects the basic structure doctrine.

________________________________________

5. Merits of the Literal Rule

             Ensures certainty in the law.

             Prevents judicial activism or legislation by the courts.

             Respects the separation of powers by adhering to legislative intent.

________________________________________

6. Demerits of the Literal Rule

             May lead to absurdity or injustice if applied rigidly.

             Ignores the broader context or the spirit of the law.

             May not address situations unforeseen by the legislature.

________________________________________

7. Exceptions to the Literal Rule

             If applying the literal meaning results in absurdity, ambiguity, or injustice, courts may adopt:

o             Golden Rule: Modifies the meaning to avoid absurdity.

o             Mischief Rule: Focuses on the statute's purpose and the defect it seeks to remedy.

________________________________________

8. Conclusion

The Rule of Literal Interpretation is the cornerstone of statutory interpretation. While it ensures clarity and respects legislative supremacy, courts must cautiously apply it to avoid unjust outcomes. Cases like LNER v. Berriman exemplify its rigid application, while exceptions highlight the need for flexibility in certain situations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

चिल्ड्रन डे की ढ़ेरों बधाईयां

  मेरे प्यारे नन्हें बच्चों!   पहले, मैं सभी बच्चों को इस दिन की बहुत-बहुत शुभकामनाएँ देना चाहता हूँ। आप सभी इस दुनिया का सबसे अनमोल हिस्सा हैं। आपके शिक्षक उम्र और तजुर्बे में आपसे काफी बड़े है, बढ़ती उम्र उनके माथे में अनायास सिकन लाती है l दुनियाभर की बेमतलब जिम्मेदारियों के बोझ में शिक्षक को सुकून तब मिलता है जब आपका मुस्कुराता हुआ चेहरा सामने आता है l आपको शायद अभी इसका अहसास न हो, लेकिन इस बात में कोई दो राय नहीं है कि आप सभी उस ईश्वर/भगवान या उस अलौकिक परमतत्व के प्रतिरूप है l  चिल्ड्रन डे, जो कि हमारे प्रिय पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के जन्मदिन पर मनाया जाता है, हमें यह याद दिलाता है कि बच्चों का भविष्य हमारे समाज का भविष्य है। नेहरू जी ने हमेशा बच्चों के विकास और शिक्षा को प्राथमिकता दी। उन्होंने कहा था कि "बच्चे हमारे भविष्य हैं," और यही कारण है कि हमें उन्हें प्यार, देखभाल और सही दिशा में मार्गदर्शन देना चाहिए। आज का दिन सिर्फ उत्सव मनाने के लिए नहीं हैं, बल्कि हमें यह भी सोचना है कि हम बच्चों को कैसे एक सुरक्षित, खुशहाल और समृद्ध जीवन दे सकते हैं। हमें बच्चों क...

1. B.Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 12

 Ref : AIR 1978 SC 12 Sub :- This case is based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Facts of the case:- 1. A woman by the name of Sulbamal worked in an industry named Mount Stuart Estate which was related to planta- tion. 2. Sulbamal gave an application for maternity leave. The estimated period for delivery was 16-12-1967 and she deliv- ered the child on this very date. 3. Maternity benefit was given by way of salary for 72 work- ing days by the employer to the woman workman, but in this period Sunday being the holiday, was excluded by the employer. 4. Thus, being dissatisfied with the amount so provided, she filed an application before the employer in this regard. 5. It was demanded by the woman workman that she should be given full benefit of 12 weeks under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is of full 84 days, not of 72 days because Sunday is also included in it. 6. But, she was denied of the payment of full 84 days by the employer. Trial Court...

भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय

  संगठन चार्ट प्रधान सचिव रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक सूचीकरण) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार / एआर-सह-पीएस शाखा अधिकारी/कोर्ट मास्टर व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक प्रशासन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (खरीद एवं भंडार) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार-I (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायाधीश प्रशासन एवं अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संबंध) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (प्रौद्योगिकी) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार(कंप्यूटर) शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी/ तकनीक. सहायक-सह-प्रोग्रामर रजिस्ट्रार-II (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायालय एवं भवन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप...