It is clear from the foregoing analysis that the rule of literal interpretation is the primary rule of interpretation according to which courts interpret statutes and regulations literally, without giving them meaning and without modifying them. This rule is useful in cases where there is no ambiguity. The literal rule of interpretation is, in a way, against the use of intelligence in the understanding of language. Judges are bound by the literal meaning of words and cannot use their judicial mind to deviate from it. A major criticism of this rule of interpretation is that the meaning of words can change from time to time and therefore literal interpretation leads to injustice. This can set misleading precedents. Another criticism of this rule is that it limits and limits the court so that it is unable to use its legal mind to deviate from the literal meaning of the terms. In inheritance law, the rule is also preferred because the testator is usually not there to indicate which interpretation of a will is appropriate. Therefore, external evidence should not be allowed to alter the words used by the testator or their meaning. It can help to ensure uniform interpretation.
Laws are often enacted by legal experts under the direction of experts in various fields and, as a result, the wording or wording used in these laws can be confusing or ambiguous. Interpretation literally means explaining or understanding. The fundamental purpose of interpretation is to facilitate understanding of the various statutes and provisions of the law. That cannot have been Parliament`s intention. However, the literal rule does not take into account the consequences of a literal interpretation, but only the question of whether the words have a clear meaning that has meaning in this context. If Parliament does not like the literal interpretation, it must amend the law. It is the oldest of the design rules and is still used today, mainly because judges are not allowed to legislate. Since there is always a risk that a particular interpretation will amount to a statute, some judges prefer to stick to the literal wording of the law.
The rule of simple meaning, also known as the literal rule, is one of the three rules of legal construction traditionally applied by English courts. [1] The other two are the “rule of mischief” and the “golden rule.” The term interpretation is derived from the Latin term interpretari, which means to explain or understand. Any law must be interpreted by the judge as it is to be understood. The purpose of interpretation is always to know what the law represents, what deficiency it seeks to remedy and what remedy it seeks to remedy.[1] The basic principle of statutory interpretation is that words must be read and understood in their true literal sense. The literal rule is the first rule applied by judges. The literal rule is also called the grammatical rule by some lawyers. The literal rule means that a judge must take into account what the law says “literally”, that is, its clear and simple meaning without any ambiguity. It is said that the words themselves best explain the intention of legislators.[2] Interpretation or interpretation is the process by which courts attempt to determine legislative intent through the relevant form in which it is expressed.[3] In the rule of literal interpretation, the law must be considered as it is, and judges cannot go beyond “litera legis”. Literal interpretation is a means of determining the ratio legis of the law. As a general rule, the intention of the legislator in formulating the statute is the ordinary meaning of the words used. Jervis J.
described the meaning of the literal rule in Abley v Gale.[4] Lord Diplock observed in Duport Steel Ltd v. Sirs[5] that: If the meaning of the terms prescribed by the law is clear and unambiguous, it is not for judges to invent imaginary ambiguities as an excuse for not implementing their clear meaning because they consider the consequences to be inappropriate. or even unfair or immoral. The words of a law must first be understood in their natural, ordinary, or popular sense, and sentences and sentences are interpreted according to their grammatical meaning, unless this leads to an absurdity or there is something in the context or purpose of the law that suggests otherwise.[6] No judge can deviate from the meaning of the law, although the decision may be unjust. The terms of a law must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.[7] The literal rule accepts the supremacy of parliament: the right to legislate, even if they sometimes seem absurd. In the rule of literal interpretation, there is no contrary meaning in the law. Where there is no ambiguity in words, the question of intent should not be allowed. [8] The words are clearly under the literal rule. The literal rule assists the judge in the neutral administration of justice.
If the wording of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not necessary to examine the intent of Parliament or the purpose of the Act.[9] The literal rule practically sets limits on judges so as not to depart from the ordinary or literal meaning of the words used in the law. If the wording of the law is not clear or ambiguous, the judge has a duty to interpret. The literal rule values accuracy and safety, which helps reduce disputes. Judges must act according to the true will of the legislature. Judges do not have the freedom to amend the law, even if they feel that the true intention of the legislature has not been properly expressed in the law. Although a literal interpretation must be accepted, it should not be followed if the law is imperfect. According to the rule of simple meaning, in the absence of a definition to the contrary in the law, words must have their clear, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even if the intention of the legislator may have been different or if the result may be harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says, not what the law should say. The literal rule is a rule of legal interpretation and it is there that the courts simply examine the words of the law and apply them as they are written to give them their ordinary and natural meaning. Under this rule, the judge looks at what the law actually says, not what it might mean. To do this, the judge will give the words of the law a literal meaning, that is, their ordinary simple meaning, even if it leads to something that might otherwise be considered unfair or undesirable.
The literal rule is that the intention of the legislature is best found in the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used. As the democratic legislative part of the state, parliament must be understood as wanting to implement exactly what it says in its laws.