LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION - PRIMARY RULE

Interpretation of statutes

2. INTRODUCTION
The literal rule of interpretation is a principle used in
legal contexts to interpret statutes. It suggests that
the words in a statute should be given their plain,
ordinary, and literal meaning. This means that the
court should interpret the law based solely on the
wording of the statute itself, without considering
intentions or purposes behind the law. It's like saying
that the exact words written in the law should be
followed as they are written. This rule aims to uphold
the principle of certainty in the law and prevent
judges from adding their interpretations to the
legislation.

3. THEY ARE 4 RRULES OF INTERPRETATION
1.Literal rule
2.Golden rule
3.Mischief rule
4.Strict rule
Now we are discussing about the literal rule.

4. LITERAL RULE
•Literal rule we can call as also primary or fundamental rule.

•Because only after the literal rule we can go to the next
rule.

•Sometimes they may not achieve the intention.

•It also golden rule but not completely golden rule.

•Literal rule is one of the golden rule.

•Literal rule may not extend the level of justice sometimes.

•We can getout if the literal rule dosen’t satisfy the
objective of the statute / consider law.

5. CASE LAWS
FISHER V BELL 1961
PV.NARASHIMARAO’S
CASE

6. FISHER V BELL 1961

In this case, the defendant displayed a flick
knife in his shop window with a price tag on
it. The statute made it an offense to "offer for
sale" certain weapons. The court applied the
literal rule and held that the defendant was
not guilty because the display of the knife
with a price tag was not an offer for sale but
an invitation to treat. This case demonstrates
the technical and narrow interpretation of
the literal rule.

7. PV.NARASHIMARAO’S CASE

The PV Narasimha Rao case refers to a landmark
judgment by the Supreme Court of India
regarding the application of the literal rule of
statutory interpretation. P.V. Narasimha Rao was
a former Prime Minister of India who was
accused in a corruption case. The case involved
interpreting a provision of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951, which dealt with
disqualification of Members of Parliament.

8. The literal rule of statutory
interpretation suggests that judges
should interpret the words of a
statute in their plain, ordinary, and
literal meaning, without considering
the intention of the legislature or the
consequences of the interpretation.
In the PV Narasimha Rao case, the
Supreme Court upheld the literal
interpretation of the provision in
question, stating that the words of
the statute were clear and
unambiguous. As a result, Narasimha
Rao was disqualified from holding
public office.

9. This case is significant because it
reaffirmed the importance of
adhering to the literal rule in
statutory interpretation, especially
in cases where the language of the
statute is clear and unambiguous. It
also highlighted the principle that
judges should interpret statutes
based on their plain meaning,
regardless of the consequences or
the identity of the individuals
involved.

10. THANK
YOU