1.

RULE OF MISCHIEF

 Mischief means "Voluntarily cause injury or loss to someone.”

 The mischief rule of statutory interpretation is the oldest of the rules. The mischief rule is
a rule of statutory interpretation that attempts to determine the legislator’s intention. Its
main aim is to determine the “mischief and defect” of the statute.
 The mischief rule was established in Heydon’s Case in 1584. Under the mischief rule the
Court’s role is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. This rule thus assists the
court in identifying the proper construction of statutory wording according to the original
intention of the legislators.
 In Haydon's case, it was held that there are four things that have to be followed for true
and sure interpretation of all the statutes in general, which are as follows-
 What was the common law before the making of an act.
 What was the mischief for which the present statute was enacted.
 What remedy did the Parliament sought or had resolved and appointed to cure the disease
of the commonwealth.
 The true reason of the remedy.
 It was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the
statute. But this does not mean that a construction should be adopted which ignores the
plain natural meaning of the words or disregard the context and the collection in which
they occur
Advantages:
 It gives effect to parliament's intentions
 It allows judges to use their common sense and save parliament time
 It allows judges to consider social and technological changes
Disadvantages:
 Finding the intention of Parliament can be difficult
 It is reasonable to argue that what parliament intended can only be seen in what it actually
wrote in the act
 It is undemocratic
 The rule is out of date and does not reflect modern needs
 It might cause uncertainty if a judge changes the meaning of statute
Case Laws:

1. Smith v. Huges, 1960 WLR 830,

in this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting in the streets of London and
it was creating a huge problem in London. This was causing a great problem in
maintaining law and order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, 1959 was
enacted. After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started soliciting from windows
and balconies.
Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the streets and balconies
were charged under section 1(1) of the said Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were
not solicited from the streets.
The court held that although they were not soliciting from the streets yet the mischief
rule must be applied to prevent the soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue.
Thus, by applying this rule, the court held that the windows and balconies were taken to
be an extension of the word street and charge sheet was held to be correct
2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V. Sri Krishna Manufacturing Company,
1962 Air 1536
In this case, the factory listed as respondent comprised of 4 units for manufacturing.
The 4 units operated as paddy mill, flour mill, saw mill and copper sheet units.
The number of employees there were more than 50.
By the application of the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952, the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the factory to furnish the employees
with benefits.
In the contrary, the respondent refused to comply on the ground that, separately, each of
the 4 units comprised of less than 50 employees.
Arguing on the aforesaid grounds, he stated that the provisions of the Act did not apply to
him. Nonetheless, the court was of the opinion that the mischief rule needed to be applied
in this case. Therefore, considering all the 4 units to be one industry.
3. Elliott v Grey (1960)
In the case of the Elliot v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367, according to the Road Traffic Act 1930
no uninsured car is allowed to be driven and parked on the road. The defendant’s car was
parked on the road because it was jacked up and the battery was removed. He argued that
he was not ‘using’ the car as it was clearly seen that he could not drive it. The court held
 that defendant was found guilty because the Parliament wanted people to use insured cars.
This means that the mischief rule is applied by the court in this case as the held by the
court stated that the car was being used on the road and in case of an accident insurance
would be required. The rule was that the people are compensated when injured due to the
incidents or dangers caused by others. In other words, ensuring people were compensated
when injured due to the hazards created by others was the aim of the statute. In short, the
court refers to what the Act was intended to do.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. M.P. Sharma (1954 AIR 300):
Background: This case involved a constitutional challenge to the constitutionality of
search and seizure conducted under certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The question was whether these provisions violated the right against self-incrimination
guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the underlying principle of Article 20(3) was to
protect individuals from being compelled to be a witness against themselves. It examined
the historical context and the legal principles that informed this protection. The Court
interpreted the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in light of this purpose and
the potential mischief of coercive self-incrimination.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the search and seizure conducted under the
provisions in question did not violate Article 20(3) since they did not involve testimonial
compulsion. The Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the constitutional
provision and the potential mischief that it aimed to address.
5. Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
An example of the use of the mischief rule is found in the case of Corkery v
Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102. In 1950 Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month’s
imprisonment for being drunk in charge of a bicycle in public. At about 2.45 p.m. on 18
January 1950, the defendant was drunk and was pushing his pedal bicycle along Broad
Street in Ilfracombe. He was subsequently charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act
1872 with being drunk in charge of a carriage. The 1872 Act made no actual reference to
bicycles. The court elected to use the mischief rule to decide the matter. The purpose of
the Act was to prevent people from using any form of transport on a public highway
whilst in a state of intoxication. The bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore
the user was correctly charged.
 2. RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

 When there is a conflict between two or more provisions of the law they should be
followed in such way that maximum benefit can be obtained and no rule need to be
violated in the process of following other one.
 It is a sound rule of interpretation that Courts must try to avoid a conflict between the
provisions of Statute.
 A statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with
reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the
whole statute.
 It is the duty of the Courts to avoid conflict between two provisions, and whenever it is
possible to do so to construe provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonize.
 Where in an enactment, there are two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each
other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect may be given to both. This is
what is known as the “rule of harmonious construction”. Such a construction has the
merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between a
section and other parts of the statute.

Case Laws:

1. The principle of harmony building has its origins in the landmark judgment of Shri
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, 1951. The disagreement between Part III
(Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the
Constitution was the subject of the India case. It was evident that there existed a conflict
between Article 13 and Article 368 of the Indian constitution. On one hand Article 368
gave legislature the power to amend the constitution at the same time Article 13 (2)
restricted the same. The Supreme Court in this case used the doctrine of harmonious
construction in an attempt to resolve the conflicting provisions. It was concluded that the
word 'law' in Article 13 (2) is for ordinary laws and not constitutional laws. Thereby
limiting the extent of 'law' under Article 13 (2).
2. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1975) 1 SCC 735:
 Background: This case involved the interpretation of provisions related to the refund of
excess sales tax paid by Dhampur Sugar Mills under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act,
1948.
 Facts: Dhampur Sugar Mills had paid excess sales tax under protest. Subsequently, the
Act was amended, and the amendment provided for a new mode of calculating refunds.
Dhampur Sugar Mills applied for a refund based on the amended provision, but the State
of Uttar Pradesh rejected the application and calculated the refund amount using the old
provision.
 Issue: The main issue was whether the amended provision could be applied
retrospectively for calculating the refund, or whether the old provision should be used.
 Court's Decision: The Supreme Court of India held that the amended provision could be
applied retrospectively for calculating the refund. The Court applied the rule of
harmonious construction to interpret the provisions in a manner that was beneficial to the
taxpayer and did not render any provision redundant.
3. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara [AIR 1951 SC 318]
 Facts of the Case: The State of Bombay had enacted the Bombay Prohibition Act, of
1949, which aimed to prohibit the production, manufacture, possession, and consumption
of alcohol. This Act contained provisions that allowed the state government to grant
licenses for the sale and possession of alcohol for medicinal and other specified purposes.
The question arose whether these provisions conflicted with Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the
Constitution, which guarantee the right to hold property and practice any profession,
trade, or business.
 Issue: The main issue before the court was whether the provisions of the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949, that granted licenses for the sale and possession of alcohol for
specific purposes were violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
 Court's Ruling and Analysis: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the provisions of
the Bombay Prohibition Act that allowed the state government to grant licenses for
specific purposes. The court emphasized the principle of harmonious construction in
statutory interpretation. It held that when there are seemingly conflicting provisions in a
statute, the court should endeavor to reconcile them in a way that allows both provisions
to operate effectively and harmoniously.
 Order: The Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the provisions of the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949, which allowed the state government to grant licenses for the sale
and possession of alcohol for medicinal and other specified purposes.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
Background: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a landmark Indian constitutional case
that dealt with the right to travel abroad and the scope of the fundamental right to
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Issue: The central issue in this case was whether the government could impose restrictions
on an individual's right to travel abroad and whether such restrictions would be subject to
judicial review under Article 21.
Key Arguments:
Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and activist, challenged the government's decision to
impound her passport and restrict her right to travel abroad. She argued that this violated
her fundamental right to personal liberty and that the restrictions were arbitrary and not
based on valid reasons.
The Union of India contended that the government had the authority to impound
passports and restrict travel abroad under the Passport Act, 1967, and that such decisions
were not justiciable.
Decision and Rationale: The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, ruled in
favor of Maneka Gandhi and held that the right to travel abroad fell within the ambit of
the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court
recognized that personal liberty encompassed a wide range of freedoms, including the
freedom to travel abroad.
The court also held that any law that could potentially deprive a person of their personal
liberty must satisfy the tests of reasonableness and fairness. It declared that the Passport
Act, 1967, had to be read in harmony with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution.
The court ruled that the government's decision to impound Maneka Gandhi's passport
should be based on valid reasons, should be procedurally fair, and should be subject to
judicial review. It emphasized that the right to personal liberty could not be curtailed
arbitrarily.
5. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)
 Background: M. C. Mehta v. Union of India is a significant Indian environmental case
that dealt with the interpretation of various environmental laws and the principle of
harmonious construction to protect the environment.
Issue: The central issue in this case was whether industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone
(TTZ), which includes the Taj Mahal in Agra, should be regulated and relocated to
prevent environmental pollution and damage to the monument.
Key Arguments:
M. C. Mehta, the petitioner, argued that the industries in the TTZ were causing pollution
and damage to the Taj Mahal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. He contended that the
environmental laws should be strictly enforced to protect the monument and the
environment.
Decision and Rationale: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, applied the
principle of harmonious construction to reconcile the conflicting interests of industrial
development and environmental protection. The court held that both objectives could be
pursued simultaneously.
The court ordered the relocation of polluting industries from the TTZ and imposed strict
environmental regulations. It emphasized that environmental laws and industrial
development could coexist, provided that industries adhered to pollution control measures
and operated in an environmentally sustainable manner

3. RULE OF BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION

 Beneficent construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to the statutes.
When there are two or more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word, the
meaning which gives relief and protects the benefits which are purported to be given by
the legislation should be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct
perspective so as to fructify the legislative intent.
 People are entitled to receive certain benefits, but only if they meet certain
conditions and within a specific time frame. If these conditions are not met, the benefit
will be nullified or no longer applicable. There should be due stress and emphasis to
Directive Principles of State Policy and any international convention on the subject.
 The liberal construction can only flow from the language of the act and there cannot
be placing of unnatural interpretation on the words contained in the enactment.
 Also, beneficial construction does not permit the rising of any presumption that
protection of widest amplitude must be deemed to have been conferred on those for
whose benefit the legislation may have been enacted.

Case laws:

1. Manohar lal Vs The State of Punjab AIR 1961

 Provision of Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 says:
 Sec7 (1) – Employer shall keep his shop closed on the day which he had himself chosen
as a “close day”.
 Facts of the Case:
 The appellant who was a shopkeeper was convicted for the second time by the Additional
District Magistrate for contravening the provisions of Sec 7 (1) of the Punjab Trade
Employees Act, 1940.
 He raised the plea that the Act did not apply to his as he did not employ any stranger but
that himself alone worked in it and that the application of Sec 7 (1) to his shop would be
violative of his fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution
and also that the restriction imposed was not reasonable within Article 19 (6) as it was not
in the interest of the general.
 Use of Interpretation Rule:
 Court Held, that the main object of the Act was the welfare of the employees and to
protect their as well as the employers’ health by preventing them from overwork. Such a
restriction being in the interest of the general public was reasonable within the meaning of
Article 19 (6) of the Constitution.
 The provisions of Sec 7 (1) were constitutionally valid and were justified as for securing
administrative convenience and avoiding evasion of those provisions designed for the
protection of the workmen.
2. B. Shah V. P.O AIR 1978
 Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: This act provides for maternity benefits to women
employees in India.
 Section 5 Right to Payment of Maternity Benefit: This section states that every woman
shall be entitled to maternity benefits, and her employer shall be liable for payment at the
rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, including the period
 immediately preceding the day of her delivery and the period immediately following that
day.
 Case Background: Ms. X, an employee of the appellant, took maternity leave. After her
delivery, the appellant paid her a maternity benefit based on her average daily wages for
72 working days within 12 weeks of the maternity period, excluding Sundays. The
question was whether this calculation was correct.
 High Court’s Interpretation: The High Court interpreted the law to mean that the 12
weeks mentioned in Section 5(2) of the Act should refer to 12 weeks of work, and the
benefit calculation should include all the days, including Sundays, within that period
when the woman would have worked but for her inability.
 Supreme Court’s Interpretation: The Supreme Court noted that the Act did not provide a
definition of the term “week” and should be understood in its ordinary dictionary
meaning. In this context, a “week” was considered a cycle of 7 days, including Sundays.
Therefore, the legislature intended that the maternity benefit calculation should cover the
entire period of the woman worker’s absence, including Sundays, not just the intermittent
6 working days.
 Beneficial Rule of Construction: The Court emphasized that when interpreting provisions
of beneficial legislation like the Maternity Benefit Act, the rule of construction should be
in favor of the worker’s welfare. This means that the calculation of maternity benefits
should ensure that the woman worker can not only subsist but also recover her energy,
take care of her child, maintain her efficiency as a worker, and sustain her previous work
output.
 Court Decision: Based on the interpretation of the Act and the beneficial rule of
construction, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the calculation of maternity
benefits should cover all days, including Sundays, within the specified period.
3. U Unichoyi vs State of Kerala, 1963
The question was whether the setting of a minimum wage through the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution because the act did not define what is
minimum wage and did not take into account the capacity of the employer to pay. It was held
that the act is beneficial legislation and it must be construed in favor of the worker. In an
underdeveloped country where unemployment is rampant, it is possible that workers may
become ready to work for extremely low wages but that should not happen.
4. Secretary State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1
The Supreme Court held that those employed on daily wages temporarily or on contractual
basis by State or its instrumentalities cannot be said to be holders of a post and have no right
to regularization simply because they have worked for a number of years. This decision
shows that sympathy or sentiment cannot be the sole ground for passing a favourable order
when there is no legal right to support such an order.
5. Kala v. Union of India (1995) SCC 1385
On matter related to compensation for a railway accident the Court held that the word
‘Untoward incident’ include the accidental falling while trying to board a train, and was not
limited to situations where a person got inside and fell off thereafter. In this case the court
held the Railways Act as beneficial legislation and thus it should be given liberal and not
literal or strict interpretation. In another case the Supreme Court held welfare Statute must, of
necessity, receives a broad interpretation.

4. RULE OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION

 The literal rule of interpretation has been termed as the primary rule of interpretation.
As the name suggests, the literal rule of interpretation means that the judge literally
interprets the statute. It can also be called the plain-meaning rule or the grammatical
rule.
 In the literal rule of interpretation, the courts are required to observe the ordinary and
natural meaning of words, interpret the phrase or words as it is. Judges are not
required to add words or modify meaning and they must observe the actual intent of
the legislature. It is the safest rule of interpretation
 Statutes are constructed using the ordinary meaning of language given to the term and
the judges are not required to interpret the terms in any other way.
 Judges are bound by the literal meaning of the words and cannot use their judicial minds
to deviate from it.
Criticism:
 Literal Rule rests on the assumption that there is only one meaning for a particular word.
This restricts the scope of deriving meaning from the context of the Statute and depending
solely upon the plain wordings. This is the reason the Judges prefer to apply the golden
rule instead of the Literal rule so as to consider the intent of the Statute and not the plain
words.
 According to Salmond, “The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter
is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it”.
 Lord Reid in DPP v Ottewell affirmed that “the imprecision of the English language… is
such that it is extremely difficult to draft any provision which is not ambiguous in that
sense”
Advantages of Literal Rule of Interpretation:
 Literal rule enables layman to understand the issue in hand.
 It enables to understand the intent of legislature simply and clearly.
 This rule respects parliamentary supremacy.
 Separation of Power is accomplished in an applicable manner
The disadvantage of the Literal Rule of Interpretation
 Creates loopholes in Law
 Another criticism of this rule is that it restricts and bounds the court making it unable to
use its judicial mind to deviate from the literal meaning of the terms
 Sometimes, a court might ascertain an absolutely absurd meaning which the legislature
never intended.

Case laws:

1. Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325 : In this case Maqbool, an
Indian citizen, upon returning from an international trip brought some gold with him.
According to the Sea Customs Act, no Indian citizen was allowed to bring any valuables
such as gold and hence, his gold was confiscated. He was then prosecuted under the
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Maqbool contended that since the gold had
already been confiscated, and that was a trial in itself. He cannot be prosecuted under
FERA, 1947 as it would amount to double jeopardy. However, the Supreme Court held
that confiscation of gold cannot be termed as prosecution and hence it was not a case of
double jeopardy according to the strict and literal interpretation of Article 20(2)
2. State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others, 1987 AIR 33 SCR(1) 317,
 in this case a person was caught along with the counterfeit currency “dollars” and he was
charged under section 120B, 498A, 489C and 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code for possessing counterfeit currency. The accused contended before the court that a
charge under section 489 A of Indian Penal Code can only be levied in the case of
 counterfeiting of Indian currency notes and not in the case of counterfeiting of foreign
currency notes. The court held that the word currency notes or bank note cannot be
prefixed. The person was held liable to be charge-sheeted.
3. In the case of R vs. Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446
 The defendant bit off victim's nose. According to the statute it is an offence 'to stab cut or
wound'. The court interpreted the Statute in such a manner that it gave a pre-requisite for
the act of the defendant to be an offence and that is the usage of an instrument. Therefore,
the defendant was held not liable for biting.
4. Deepak Aggrawal v Keshav Kausik (2013)
 Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India provides that a person shall only be eligible to
be appointed as a District Judge if he has been, for not less than seven years, an advocate
or pleader, and is recommended by the high court for appointment. A three-Judge Bench
of the Supreme Court held that it is clear from the expression "has been" that the present
perfect continuous tense is used for a position that began sometime in the past and is still
continuing, and that therefore such person must, with the requisite period, still be
continuing as an advocate on the date of his application.
5. Municipal Board v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan
 the location of bus stand by changed by the local transport authority. Application against
the order must be moved within 30 days from the date of the order. The issue raised be
applicant is that the order can be moved 30 days from the knowledge of the order passed
by Regional Transport authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the since the
language of the statute is plain and unambiguous equitable consideration are out of place
and clear grammatical meaning of the statute stand out.

5. RULE OF REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION

 According to this Rule, the words of a statute must be construed 'ut res magis valeat quam
pereat' meaning thereby that words of statute must be construed so as to lead to a sensible
meaning. Generally, the words or phrases of a statute are to be given their ordinary
meaning. A statute must be construed in such a manner so as to make it effective and
operative on the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat So while interpreting a law,
two meanings are possible, one making the statute absolutely vague and meaningless and
 other leading to certainty and a meaningful interpretation, in such case the later
interpretation should be followed
 Avoiding Absurdity: Courts presume that the legislature did not intend to create absurd,
irrational, or unreasonable results through its legislation. Therefore, the interpretation that
leads to such outcomes is generally avoided in favor of a more sensible interpretation.
 Practical Effect: Courts consider the practical consequences of different interpretations.
The interpretation that leads to a more practical or workable outcome is often preferred.
 Legislative Intent: The rule aims to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Courts
consider the purpose and objectives behind the legislation to arrive at an interpretation
that aligns with the broader legislative goals.
 Context and Contextual Interpretation: The context in which the statute is enacted,
including other related provisions and the legislative history, is taken into account to
arrive at a reasonable interpretation.
 Literal Interpretation with Reasonableness: While the rule focuses on reasonable
interpretations, it doesn't disregard the actual wording of the statute. Courts still consider
the literal meaning of the words but ensure that the interpretation is reasonable in light of
the context and purpose.

Case Laws:

1. University of Calcutta and Others v. Pritam Rooj (2009) Cal HC

 In this case, a student made an RTI application seeking inspection of his answer sheets
which was turned down by the PIO i.e. Registrar of the University claiming exemption
under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter, the applicant filed a writ petition
before the Calcutta High Court seeking production of his answer sheets for re-evaluation
by an expert examiner. Two conflicting viewpoints came before the Court, one was the
view of public authorities that applicability and operation of the RTI Act would render the
system unworkable and the other of the information seekers to gain access to the answer
scripts by reason of the right conferred by it.
 The Court observed that in such circumstances, the principle of ut res magis valeat quam
pereat has to be applied. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the CBSE to
grant inspection of answer sheets to information seekers but the plea regarding re-
 evaluation was refused, leaving it open for the students to seek relief on this behalf in
appropriate proceedings.
2. G.P. Singh vs. State of Haryana (2010)
 Background: This case involved the interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963. Section 5 provides for the extension of the limitation period for filing legal actions
in certain situations. It allows for the condonation of delay if the court is satisfied that the
claimant had sufficient cause for not filing the case within the prescribed time.
 Issue: The main issue was the interpretation of the phrase "sufficient cause" in Section 5
of the Limitation Act. The question before the court was whether the provision should be
interpreted narrowly, making it difficult for claimants to seek an extension of the
limitation period, or whether a more liberal and reasonable interpretation should be
adopted to uphold the legislative intent of providing relief in deserving cases.
 Provision in Question (Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963): "Any appeal or any
application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the
appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal or making the application within such period.
 Court's Decision: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, emphasized the
importance of adopting a reasonable and liberal approach to the interpretation of Section
5. The court held that the provision should not be interpreted too narrowly or rigidly, as
doing so would defeat the legislative intent of providing relief in cases where genuine
difficulties prevented timely filing. The court observed that the term "sufficient cause"
should be construed in a practical and common-sense manner, considering the facts and
circumstances of each case.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd. (1995)
 Background: This case revolved around a contract between the State of Maharashtra and
Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd. Britannia had leased land from the State for a fixed period,
and the lease agreement contained a clause that allowed the State to terminate the lease
upon giving six months' notice.
 Issue: The primary issue in this case was the interpretation of the termination clause in the
lease agreement. Specifically, the dispute centered on whether the State could terminate
the lease before the agreed-upon period by providing six months' notice
 Rule of Reasonable Construction: The rule of reasonable construction played a crucial
role in this case as the court had to determine the intent and effect of the termination
clause in the lease agreement. It involved interpreting the language of the contract and
assessing whether the State's right to terminate was reasonable in the given context.
 Court's Decision: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, applied the rule of
reasonable construction to analyze the lease agreement's terms. The court held that the
termination clause should be construed reasonably and not in a manner that would lead to
unfair or inequitable consequences.
 The court noted that while parties to a contract have the freedom to include such clauses,
they should not be interpreted in a way that allows one party to unjustly and prematurely
terminate the contract without good reason. In this case, the court found that the State's
exercise of its right to terminate the lease was arbitrary and unreasonable. It held that the
State could not terminate the lease prematurely, and Britannia was entitled to continue its
lease for the agreed-upon period.
4. KB Nagpur, MD (Ayurvedic) v. the Union of India (2012) SC
 In this case, the question arose regarding the construction of Section 7(1) of the Indian
Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. The said provision stated that the President, Vice
President, or member of the Central Council shall continue until his successor shall have
been duly elected or nominated. The clause “or until his successor shall have been duly
elected or nominated, whichever is longer” was challenged as being unconstitutional and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
 The Supreme Court, while applying the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, upheld
the constitutionality of Section 7(1) and held that the said provision was made by
Parliament to take care of situations when election to the post of President, Vice-President
or member is delayed for various reasons thereby ensuring that there is no vacuum in the
membership of the Central Council. The Court thus construed Section 7(1) so as to make
it effective and operative

6. GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

 This rule is the modification of the literal rule. The golden rule modifies the language of
the words in a statute to successfully interpret the actual meaning of the legislation. It
takes into account the context in which the words are used so that justice can be done to
 the intention of the legislation. It is to be noted that the rule can be used only when the
language of the statute is ambiguous or grammatically incorrect. Thus the judges need to
be extremely careful with their interpretation and only exercise this power when it is
absolutely necessary.
 The golden rules departs from its strictly literal rules, it is elaboration or extension of
literal rule. Golden rule of interpretation allows judges to depart from a word normal
meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.
 The rule was defined by Lord Wensleydale in the Grey v Pearson case (1857) as: “The
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to
some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in
which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to
avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.”
Approach Of The Golden Rule
The golden rule can be applied in two ways:
 Narrow Approach– This approach is applied when the word or phrases capable of more
than one literal meaning. This allows the judge to apply the meaning which avoids the
absurdity.
 Broad Approach– This approach is applied when there is only one literal meaning. But
applying that one literal meaning would cause an absu/rdity. Under this approach the
court will modify the meaning to avoid the absurdity. The modification shall be keeping
in mind the intention of the Parliament making the law in question.

Advantages of the Golden Rule

 It allows the judge to modify the meaning of words to remove absurdity
 When the literal rule of interpretation fails to achieve clarity, the golden rule steps in to
help the court
 It guides the judges in applying appropriate principles while interpreting the meaning of
the statute.
 The interpretation was in line with the original intention of the Parliament. Thus, no
amendments were required.
Disadvantages:
 The golden rule is restricted in its use as it can be used only when the literal rule leads to
ambiguities in interpretation. Its use thus becomes limited and rare.
 It is unpredictable and lacks guidelines.
 One of the main disadvantages of the rule is that judges can twist the meaning of the
words and change the law. This would cause a disbalance in the separation of powers.

Case laws:

1. In the leading case of R v Allen from 1872, the defendant was charged
with bigamy under section 57 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 which made it
an offence to marry while one's spouse is still alive and not divorced. The court held that
the word 'marry' could not in that context mean 'become legally married' since that could
never apply to someone who is already married to someone else. To make sense of the
provision, the word should be interpreted as meaning to 'go through a second ceremony of
marriage
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial Company (1967)
 a transport vehicle belonging to the defendant was found to be carrying a parcel of opium
during a routine check by authorities. The defendant presented an invoice indicating that
the parcel contained crates of apples as the sole item. As per Section 11 of the Opium Act
of 1878, all vehicles transporting contraband articles were to be impounded and the
articles confiscated.
 The transport company argued that they did not know the opium present in their vehicle.
The main issue was whether the magistrate was obligated to confiscate the vehicle based
on the wording of Section 11 of the Opium Act of 1878.
 The High Court ruled that it would be unjust to confiscate the vehicle of an individual
who did not know of the presence of opium. Considering that the statute in question was
penal, it should be interpreted in a manner that does not penalise someone who has not
committed an offence. The word “shall” in “shall be confiscated” was interpreted to mean
“may” in the context of such cases
3. Lee v. Knapp (1967)
 In this case, interpretation of the world 'stop' was involved. Under section 77(1) of the
road traffic Act, 1960 a driver causing an accident shall stop after the accident. In this
case, the driver stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then moved away.
Applying the golden rule the Court held that requirement of the section had not been
 followed by the driver as he had not stopped for a reasonable time of period Requiring
interested persons to make necessary inquiries for him about the accident.
4. Raghunathrao v. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 659.
 In this case, the Supreme Court of India was tasked with interpreting the word "State" as
used in Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. Article 12 defines "State" for the purposes of
Part III of the Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Rights. The question arose
whether the term "State" in Article 12 only includes governmental entities or extends to
other bodies performing governmental functions.
 Issue: The main issue was whether entities other than governmental bodies could be
considered "State" under Article 12, thereby making them subject to the Fundamental
Rights provisions of the Indian Constitution.
 Decision: The Supreme Court applied the Golden Rule of interpretation to broaden the
scope of the term "State" in Article 12. The Court held that the term should include not
only governmental entities but also non-governmental entities that are engaged in public
or governmental functions. This interpretation aligned with the spirit of the Constitution
and ensured that the Fundamental Rights of citizens would be protected even when
violations occurred by entities beyond the traditional definition of the government.
5. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar [(1962) 1 SCR 396]:
 Facts of the Case: The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section
124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offense of sedition. The petitioner,
Kedar Nath Singh, was charged with making speeches that allegedly promoted feelings of
disaffection towards the government.
 Issue: The primary issue before the court was whether Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code was consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
 Court's Ruling and Analysis: The Supreme Court applied the golden rule of interpretation
to reconcile the potentially conflicting provisions of Section 124A and Article 19(1)(a).
 Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defined the offense of sedition as any act or
speech that attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the government. The petitioner argued that this provision was
unconstitutional as it restricted the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
 The court held that while the language of Section 124A was broad, it should be
interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution. The court applied the
 golden rule to ensure that the provision would not be used to stifle legitimate dissent or
criticism of the government.
 The court ruled that only acts or speeches that incite violence or public disorder would
fall within the purview of the offense of sedition. It interpreted Section 124A in a manner
that harmonized it with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,
avoiding an interpretation that would infringe upon the constitutional rights.