Golden Rules of Interpretation

Origin and Nature 

• The golden rule of interpretation was propounded in the case of Grey v. Pearson by Lord Wensleydale in the year 1957, also known as Wensleydale's Golden Rule. 
• This rule is a modification of the literal rule of interpretation. 
• The golden rule modifies the language of words in a statute to successfully interpret the actual meaning of the legislation. 
• It takes into account the context in which words are used so that justice can be done to the intention of the legislation. 
• The rule can be used only when the language of the statute is ambiguous or grammatically incorrect. 
• Judges need to be extremely careful with their interpretation and only exercise this power when absolutely necessary. 
• The golden rule of interpretation is the second step after the literal rule. 
• Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money (1976) held that the rights of the public are paramount and are to be considered superior in comparison to individual rights. If words of the statute are absurd in the context of the case, they should be considered repugnant to apply the golden rule.

Two Approaches of Application 

Narrow Approach: 

• This approach is taken when the words in the statute are capable of multiple interpretations. 
• Through this approach, the judge is able to apply the meaning which is clear and properly portrays the true intention of the statute. 
• This approach was used in the R v. Allen (1872) case. 

Broad Approach: 

• This approach is taken when there exists only one possible interpretation of a word. 
• In some cases, the meaning might cause absurdity. 
• To avoid this problem, judges can use this approach to modify the meaning of the word. 
• This modification should be limited and shouldn't deviate from the actual intention of the legislation. 
• This approach was used in Re. Sigsworth: Bedford v. Bedford (1954). 

Advantages of the Golden Rule 

• Prevents absurd or unjust outcomes. 
• Provides flexibility when literal interpretation fails. 
• Helps courts achieve legislative intent without formal amendments. 
• Saves time by allowing judges to correct minor issues in wording. 

Disadvantages of the Golden Rule 

• Limited application—used only when literal meaning is absurd or ambiguous. 
• Lacks uniform guidelines and can be unpredictable. 
• Risk of judicial overreach or bias. 
• The concept of “absurdity” is subjective and may vary from judge to judge.

Methods of Application of the Golden Rule 

Earl T. Crawford's Method: 

• The first source of interpretation should be sought from the words of the statute. 
• The meaning ascertained should be examined in the context and subject matter of the enactment. 
• If legislative intent is still unclear, various external sources of assistance (rules of interpretation) can be consulted. 

Austin's Process: 

• Finding the rule. 
• Finding the intention of the legislature. 
• Extending or restricting the statute to cover cases. 

De Sloovere's Steps: 

• Finding the right statutory provisions. 
• Interpreting the statute in its technical sense. 
• Applying the meaning to the case at hand. 

Common Principle: 

• First step is to find the appropriate rule/provision and apply it to the case at hand. 
• If the literal meaning of the statute is appropriate, it shall be applied. 
• Only when the meaning is absurd, the golden rule of interpretation shall come into play. 
• The court shall extend or restrict the statute using this rule to cover the case at hand.

Criticism of the Golden Rule 

• Concept of absurdity is vague and subjective. 
• Too much discretion may lead to judicial bias. 
• Limited applicability reduces its usefulness. 
• Lack of uniformity in application. 

Conclusion 

The golden rule is one of the better ways to strike a balance between statutory intent and evolving societal needs. There are areas of law where clear demarcation lies between the judiciary and the legislature. The intention of the legislature should always be kept in mind when interpreting statutes. The judiciary cannot cross the line and perform functions of the legislature. 

Due to possibility of errors in interpretation, the golden rule is not a perfect tool. 

The rule has stood the test of time and is still in use today.