Literal Approach Literal Rule is where the judges interpret the legislation that the Parliament has used. This approach has been actually used in the case of Fisher v Bell Golden Rule Is where the courts adopt a meaning that reflects the purpose of the legislation. Mischief Rule Approach It is where a Statute assumes to pass an order to overcome some certain defects in the common law.
The Difference between the Three Rule Approaches The difference between the above is the generally the courts are abound to take the literal rule approach to the legislation, but it is possible to do so to depart from this approach, where significant reason why they should, where they can use the Golden Approach and Mischief rile.
Share this: Reddit Email Facebook Twitter. Like this: Like Loading The reference is quite available and understandable. This is really understand-able thanks a lot Like Like. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Previous Post Resolution of Conflicts: Courts. Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.
This third rule gives a judge more discretion than either the literal or the golden rule. This rule requires the court to look to what the law was before the statute was passed in order to discover what gap or mischief the statute was intended to cover. The court is then required to interpret the statute in such a way to ensure that the gap is covered. The rule is contained in Heydon's Case , where it was said that for the true interpretation of a statute, four things have to be considered:.
The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of the Judges is to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. This rule gives the court justification for going behind the actual wording of the statute in order to consider the problem that the particular statute was aimed at remedying. At one level it is clearly the most flexible rule of interpretation, but it is limited to using previous common law to determine what mischief the Act in question was designed to remedy.
The case itself concerned a dispute about legislation passed under Henry VIII in and a legal action against Heydon for intruding into certain lands in the county of Devon. An example of the use of the mischief rule is found in the case of Corkery v Carpenter In Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for being drunk in charge of a bicycle in public. At about 2. It is through this operate the judiciary evolves the law and brings changes in it. Interpretation of statutes is that the correct understanding of law.
Because the object of court is not only to read but also to apply it in a meaningful way from case to case. Interpretation has always been considered to be very important and has been treated as a separate branch of learning. Interpretation is a work of human mind. It is known as golden rule as a result of it solves all the issues of interpretation. The literal rule of interpretation may be a means that to establish the general purport of the statute, therefore in difficult cases the court may go beyond the words of statute and take help from other sources, this rule is called Golden rule.
Golden rule tries to avoid absurd consequences that arise from literal rule of interpretation. Whereas viewing, the grammatical mistakes are also modified.
This rule suggests that the consequences and effects of interpretation deserve a lot more importance because they are the true meaning of words used in the legislation and their intention. It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and the grammatical correction, unless that is at variance with the intention of legislature to be collected from statute itself, or results in any manifest, during which the language could also be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience.
Language of the law is the manifestation of intention of legislature underlying for which the golden rule is used. In this modern time, golden rule of interpretation has been given wider application and the courts resort to it in difficulties of other kinds also. Golden rule of interpretation aims at giving effect to the laws as a mechanical and grammatical meaning is not sufficient.
Click Here. In simple words, construction is the process of drawing conclusions of the subjects which are beyond the direct expression of the text. The courts draw findings after analysing the meaning of the words used in the text or the statutes. This process is known as legal exposition.
There are a certain set of facts pending before the court and construction is the application of the conclusion of these facts. The objective is to assist the judicial body in determining the real intention of the legislature. Its aim is also to ascertain the legal effect of the legal text. Codified statutory law can be categorized as follows-. The purpose of this kind of statute is to give an authoritative statement of the rules of the law on a particular subject, which is customary laws.
This kind of statute covers and combines all law on a particular subject at one place which was scattered and lying at different places. Here, the entire law is constituted in one place. This kind of statute does an act of removing doubts, clarifying and improving the law based on the interpretation given by the court, which might not be suitable from the point of view of the parliament.
For example- the definition of house property has been amended under the Income Tax Amendment Act, through the judgement of the supreme court. The purpose of these kinds of statutes is to promote the general welfare for bringing social reforms through the system. These statutes have liberal interpretation and thus, are not interpreted through strict means.
The purpose of this statute is to enlarge a particular common law. For example- Land Acquisition Act enables the government to acquire the public property for the purpose of the public, which is otherwise not permissible.
It is the opposite of what is provided under the enabling statute. Here the rights conferred by common law are being cut down and are being restrained.
The offences for various types of offences are provided through these statutes, and these provisions have to be imposed strictly. For example- Indian Penal Code, Tax is a form of revenue which is to be paid to the government.
It can either be on income that an individual earns or on any other transaction. A taxing statute thus, levies taxes on all such transactions. There can be income tax, wealth tax, sales tax, gift tax, etc.
Therefore, a tax can be levied only when it has been specifically expressed and provided by any statute. The term explanatory itself indicates that this type of statute explains the law and rectifies any omission left earlier in the enactment of the statutes.
Further, ambiguities in the text are also clarified and checked upon the previous statutes. The statutes which operate to make changes in the provisions of the enactment to change the original law for making an improvement therein and for carrying out the provisions effectively for which the original law was passed are referred to as amending statutes.
For example- Code of Criminal Procedure amended the code of A repealing statute is one which terminates an earlier statute and may be done in the express or explicit language of the statute.
Through these statutes, certain acts which would otherwise be illegal are validated by curing the illegality and enables a particular line of action. It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning.
After the interpretation, if the meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to a provision of a statute regardless of what may be the consequences. The basic rule is that whatever the intention legislature had while making any provision it has been expressed through words and thus, are to be interpreted according to the rules of grammar.
It is the safest rule of interpretation of statutes because the intention of the legislature is deduced from the words and the language used. According to this rule, the only duty of the court is to give effect if the language of the statute is plain and has no business to look into the consequences which might arise.
The only obligation of the court is to expound the law as it is and if any harsh consequences arise then the remedy for it shall be sought and looked out by the legislature.
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay , In this case, the appellant, a citizen of India after arriving at the airport did not declare that he was carrying gold with him. During his search was carried on, gold was found in his possession as it was against the notification of the government and was confiscated under section 8 o f Sea Customs Act. Later on, he was also charged under section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, The appellant challenged this trial to be violative under Article 20 2 of the Indian Constitution.
According to this article, no person shall be punished or prosecuted more than once for the same offence.
0コメント