Skip to main content

Followers

Question- 13 निर्वचन के सिद्धान्त 'स्वर्णिम नियम' की व्याख्या इस पर आधारित निर्णीत वादों की सहायता से कीजिए।

 Explain the 'Golden Rule' of interpretation with the help of decided cases based on it.

Answer-13

The 'Golden Rule' of interpretation is a principle used in statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguities in a statute or piece of legislation. It is used when the literal meaning of the words in a statute leads to an absurd or unreasonable result. The Golden Rule suggests that, in such cases, the meaning of the statute should be altered to avoid that absurdity, but only to the extent necessary. The rule thus helps in giving effect to the true legislative intent while maintaining the purpose of the law.

Here’s a point-wise explanation of the Golden Rule of interpretation with relevant cases:

1. Literal Meaning

             The first step is to look at the literal meaning of the statute. Courts begin by applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute.

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

o             The court held that statutes should first be interpreted according to their literal meaning, unless it produces an absurd result.

2. Absurdity or Unreasonable Result

             If the literal interpretation leads to an absurd, inconsistent, or unreasonable result that contradicts the intention of the law, the Golden Rule permits the modification of the literal meaning.

             Case: Re Sigsworth (1935)

o             In this case, a son murdered his mother and would have inherited her estate under a literal interpretation of the inheritance law. The court altered the meaning, holding that he should not benefit from the crime he committed, thus avoiding an absurd result.

3. Modification of Literal Meaning

             The court may modify the wording of the statute but only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid the absurd result. The purpose is to remain as faithful to the statute as possible while avoiding outcomes that conflict with common sense or justice.

             Case: Becke v. Smith (1836)

o             The court used the Golden Rule to modify the meaning of a statute, ensuring that it didn’t produce an unreasonable result. The statute was intended to protect certain rights, and the modification ensured that its spirit remained intact.

4. Avoiding Injustice or Imbalance

             The Golden Rule is applied to avoid any injustice or imbalance that may arise due to the literal interpretation of a statute. It prevents situations where the strict letter of the law would produce an unjust outcome.

             Case: Adler v. George (1964)

o             The defendant was charged under a statute which stated that it was an offense to obstruct "in the vicinity of a prohibited place." The defendant argued that the phrase should be taken literally, meaning obstructing "outside" the prohibited area. The court applied the Golden Rule, ruling that it was absurd to not include someone obstructing within the prohibited place, and found the defendant guilty.

5. Application in Equity

             The Golden Rule allows courts to adapt statutes to achieve fairness and equity, ensuring that the legislative intent is honored without creating unintended consequences.

             Case: Whitely v. Chappell (1868)

o             A person impersonated a dead person to vote. The statute used the phrase "person entitled to vote," and the defendant argued that the dead person could still be considered a "person." The court, applying the Golden Rule, decided that the term “person” was intended to apply only to living individuals and not to the dead, to avoid an absurd result.

6. Judicial Discretion and Restraint

             While the Golden Rule allows the courts to modify a statute’s meaning, it requires judicial restraint. Courts are careful not to deviate too far from the literal meaning unless absolutely necessary to prevent an absurd outcome.

             Case: Jones v. Tower Boot Co Ltd (1997)

o             The issue was whether the protection of employees under the Race Relations Act applied to incidents occurring outside the workplace. The court applied the Golden Rule to interpret the scope of the statute, ensuring that it fulfilled the legislative intent of protecting employees from racial discrimination.

Conclusion

The Golden Rule is used in statutory interpretation when the application of a statute in its literal sense leads to absurd or unjust outcomes. By modifying the literal meaning, courts seek to fulfill the legislative intent while avoiding absurdities, contradictions, or unfair results. The rule is flexible but must be applied cautiously to preserve the balance between the words of the statute and the purpose for which it was enacted.

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...