LEGAL CERTAINTY OR TEXTUAL RIGIDITY: THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF INTERPRETING STATUTES LITERALLY BY - SMIRTHA G & VARSHA SHREE A I
LEGAL CERTAINTY OR TEXTUAL
RIGIDITY: THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF INTERPRETING STATUTES LITERALLY
AUTHORED BY - SMIRTHA G & VARSHA
SHREE A I
Abstract:
In terms of literal interpretation of
legislation, this article makes a critical examination of the dual phenomena of
legal certainty and text rigidity. The article goes into further detail about
the possible shortcomings of this method, even if it emphasises the advantages
of a physical approach in order to define clearly and reliably any relevant
legislative principles. It seeks to identify cases where an enforcement of the
statutory language may result in results which are not consistent with legal
objectives or have been insufficient for dealing with contemporary social
challenges.
In this Article, the impact of
literal interpretation on legal outcomes is presented in a way that goes beyond
theoretical considerations by providing examples from real life. As a result of
the examination of some important cases and controversies, it provides an
analytical perspective on the problems that arise as a result of excessively
rigid approaches in terms of justice and equity.
The article also examines whether
there are possible means to mitigate the drawback of textual rigidity, while at
the same time ensuring legislative certainty. It probes into jurisprudential
debates, proposing a complex framework that permits flexibility in
interpretation and does not compromise the clarity and stability of literal
approaches.
Finally, the article calls on a wider
debate to be had amongst scholars, lawyers and policy makers about how judicial
certainty is linked with textual rigidity. It argues that, while maintaining
the fundamental principles of constitutional stability and predictability, an
approach to legislative interpretation which addresses today's complexity must
be applied in a balanced manner.
Literal Interpretation of Statute
Let’s discuss the advantages of
reading the statute literally. In today’s world, the interpretation of statute
can be literal in nature. The main motto of this kind of interpretation is about
understanding of law in a plain manner by ordinary citizens of the country. The
exact meaning of the word will be taken into consideration, in other terms it
should be unambiguous to interpret. In the case of Abley v. Gale[1],
Chief Justice Jervis has elucidated the meaning of “literal interpretation” as
the precise words are unambiguous and exact in nature, thus those words provide
an ordinary sense even though it may also lead to futility and inefficiency on
executing justice. The role of judiciary plays a pivotal role of interpreting
the laws that the Parliament creates, there will be no necessity of deep
interpretation, when the interpretation is clear in nature. To avoid
ambiguities of law, the definition clause of the Acts will be referred based on
applying in the case, but in some cases the concept of Pari Materia is used to
interpret in better manner. In Harshad Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and
Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh[2],
the literal rule is no interpretation and reading statute without twisting the
language. It is followed by Judges, lawyers and layman to sustain the ordinary
life. The judge compared the literal rule of interpretation with pencil and it
must be a pencil, not an animal or bird. He also uttered the social life will
be become impossible without literal rule of interpretation. In this type of
interpretation, the meaning should be given to the language in the statute
irrespective of the consequence, this has been viewed in Municipal Board v.
State Transport Authority, Rajasthan[3],
When the Regional Transport Authority modified the position of a bus stop, an
application was made under Section 64A of the Motor Vehicle Act, which states
that such an application must be lodged within 30 days of receiving notice of
the order. However, in this case, the application was moved to the authorities
after the expiry of 30 days. Therefore, the court has to decide irrespective of
the consequences as the language is plain and unambiguous.
Sub-rules of literal interpretation of statute
Ejusdem Generis is one of the few sub
rules of literal interpretation, means the “of the same kind and nature”. It is
the list of specific words are being followed by the general words in a statute
and the general word is interpreted as a way to restrict to include the items
or things which will be of same type as those of specific words. This term is
well defined in the case of CIT v. Divya Jewellers pvt ltd[4],
the court held that the word is the rule of generis words following more
specific ones. Those specific words must be distanced form of category.
The doctrine of Casus Omissus refers
to the “case omitted” which refers to the legal principle that allows court to
interpret and fill the gaps in legislation to achieve equitable outcomes. This
doctrine can be construed in two aspects
1. Omission of
specific provisions: the legislators avoid some provisions inadvertently that
are essential on specific cases. So, this doctrine will be a tool to bridge the
gaps to infer the probable intention of the legislation.
2. Changed
circumstances: changes may be outdated or inadequate over time. Courts can
employ the doctrine to adopt the application of existing laws to suit the
current context better.
The maxim Expressio Unius Est
Alterius states that "The expression of one thing excludes the
other." In GVK Industries Ltd v.
ITO[5]
the definition of this maxim expressed widely. It leads to presumptions
which are not specified in the statute are excluded.
Advantages of literal interpretation of statute
This statute formation is based on
the understanding of the common man, not just confined to judges and lawyers.
In the case of Fisher v. Bell[6],
a shopkeeper offered to sell an offensive weapon under the Offensive
Weapons Act, of 1959. The court had taken the view through literal
interpretation with the accordance of general principles of contract law that
displaying a knife does not mean an offer to sale but an invitation to offer.
Sometimes a layman may consider the knife to be for sale but going into the
deeper interpretation, the display is just an invitation to offer. Therefore,
the defendant was not guilty of this offence as the shop window was given the
invitation to buy the knife by a potential buyer.
Literal rule of interpretation
upholds the doctrine of separation of powers through the judiciary by only
interpreting the law in the case of inconsistency. In the case of Duport
Steels v Sirs[7],
under the constitutional principles of separation of power and parliamentary
supremacy, it is the role of judiciary to interpret the law made by the
executive and legislature. According to Lord Diplock, “It is for Parliament,
not for the judiciary, to decide whether to amend the law in accordance with
the provisions of the Act, and it is for Parliament, not for the judiciary, to
interpret the law”. The consequences
would be inconvenient, even unjust or immoral in nature.
Strict interpretation
The statute should be interpreted by
letters strictly and will not be taken liberally. The judge will be taking out
the facts based upon the statutes but not on their own will, as the words are
unambiguous and there was no need to investigate further. The courts use
literal rule of interpretation to not make any wrong inferences from statutes
and there will be no bias in judgement. It has a particular set of judicial
interpretations that has limits by words, so there will be no further inference
on the analysis. In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements[8],
the court held that the statute is penal in nature, it should be strictly
construed. The court is not open to interpret the conditions which is beyond
words, the provision of exemptions must be strictly construed. The conditions
explained down are mandatory in nature.
Penal statute
Generally, strict construction must
be applied to the criminal statutes, which means there is no need to enlarge by
implication or intent beyond the fair meaning applied in the statute. Hence in
the case of penal statute will not able to encompass an offence which is beyond
the unambiguous words mentioned in the statute. In the case of R v. Harris,
the defendant bit off the nose of the victim, the statute explained through
“to stab cut or wound” a person. The court has applied literal rule of
interpretation on the aforementioned case; therefore, the act of biting will
not be under of purview of “stab cut or wound” as these words implied has been
used, and conviction of the defendant was quashed. The presumption of words
used in a criminal statute is exact and clear, no need of superfluous words to
elucidate the statute; this has been dealt in the case of Pritipal Singh v.
Union of India[9]
where a criminal charge was filed against the defendant under the
violations and provision under the “Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance
Act, 1985”.
Strict interpretation of a penal
statute provides one important advantage which is called as doctrine of lenity.
When there are Two reasonable interpretations and doubts on the meaning of a
criminal law, it gives rise to two interpretations, an interpretation leaning
in favor of the defendant shall be taken into account by the court. In
addition, in cases where doubts are raised as to the existence of a meaning,
that benefit shall also lies in favor of the defendant. In Tolaram v. state of
Bombay[10],
it was held that if two viable and reasonable interpretations of a criminal
provision exist, the court must favor the interpretation that exempts the
subject from punishment over the one that imposes the penalty.
Taxing statute
In the interpretation of tax statute, Article
265 of the Indian Constitution explains prohibition of state on extracting from
citizens without the authority of law. Even the laws of taxation need to be
strict in nature as a competent legislature is required to mandate taxing to
avoid the whims and burden towards citizens by the state. It is salient in this
statute to look what they mean clearly.
The taxation statute involves three stages,
1. Subject on
which the tax is imposed.
2. Assessment
of the liability of assessee
3. The
recovery once the assessment is made.
The charging plans are been into
consideration on the degree and incorporation of the subject concerning to whom
it is applicable. The taxing statute, the words play an important role on
deciding this matter. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v kores India
Ltd, issue raised on whether the incorporation of carbon paper will
be included in the meaning “paper”. The Supreme court compares the uses of
paper and a carbon paper, where a paper is used for composing, bundling and
printing altogether, and a carbon paper is used for various purpose.
Subsequently, the carbon paper will not be associated with normal paper in the
subject of tax assessment. Usually, this statute is required to be check with
great strictness and they need to be considered with literal interpretation
irrespective of the consequences. The main motto of this interpretation is to
prevent tax evasion. In case of two possible interpretations, the
interpretation favorable to the taxpayer is required to be preferred which is
referred in the case of Union of India v. Onkar. S. Kanwar[11].
It has been noted that the taxing statute has to be straight forward and
unambiguous, such language is deduced from the intention of the legislature,
this has been referred in the case of Natha Ram Agarwal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh.
So far, the advantages of reading the
statute as it is was discussed. Now let’s elaborate the discussion on the
disadvantages of reading the statute as it is.
Cons of reading the statute as is:
Primarily the statute has to be read
as it is keeping in mind the legislative intent and one has to apply the
statute as it is, when it is clear and unambiguous. We must always presume that
the legislature does not commit mistakes and it does not use superfluous words.
We should always presume that the statute is constitutionally valid.
But reading a statute as is keeping
in mind the legislative intent would create certain challenges as the legal
language is complex and difficult to be understood. Today’s world is rapidly
changing one and hence to cope up with the changes, the law has to amended then
and there for providing fair justice. Reading the statute as is, i.e., during
the time when enactment was made will be difficult to apply it to current
scenario. For example, section 375 of IPC deals with rape, today offenders are
trying new ways of doing that act which doesn’t fall under the section. If we
only stick with section, reading as it is, it would be very difficult to come
to a conclusion and provide fair justice to the victim. Thus, the judges are
required to interpret the law as situation demands, rather than reflecting what
is there in the statute. In olden days the scenarios were different in
comparison with the present day.
There were many eminent jurists who
criticised this aspect of reading the statute as it is with the legislative
intent. Let’s briefly discuss some of them.
A German Philosopher, Gadamer stated
that, statutory interpretation involves creative policy making by judges and
not simply applying what is given in the statute. He further states that the
interpreter was in history but interpretation is dynamic. For instance, let’s
take a classic work literature such as shakesphere’s plays, and think about it.
History tells us that the text is unchanging, but there can be variation in
interpretation over time. To generate new meanings, each era might analyse a
single game by means of various lenses and apply contemporonistic ideologies or
culture contexts. The regular words on the page are unchanged, but lively
interpretations reflect an evolution of views and values. The same applies to
the law as well. The legislature has adopted a number of laws, their text
continues to be the same but its application and interpretation changes over
time in cases relating to modern technology. The dynamic nature of interpretation
has to be demonstrated by courts, who need to dynamically adapt constitutional
principles to new technological realities. Gadamer also claims that the text
does not have a meaning until it has been interpreted. He claims that, without
having applied the text to a specific problem, he does not understand it in
abstract form.
Justice Holmes stated that he does
not care about the legislative intent, he just wants to know what that law
is." Holmes went on to explain that if we looked for intent, and read the
law as it stands, then there would be an error because words have their own
meaning independent of creator’s motives. Rather than searching for a
legislative intention, he suggested that the meaning of those words should be
examined.
Justice Cardozo stated the effort to
establish the legislative intent is a psychological one. In spite of this, if
one friend writes a letter to another. which means that the receiver of both is
very familiar with each other. letter finds it difficult to find the intention
of the friend who wrote it in particular. Although the letter's receiver was
aware of his friend's opinion, it is not clear why he has written a particular
word. When that is the case of individual, how it is possible for the courts to
find the intention of the legislature. In addition, one's thinking mind must
always be the focus of the word intention with its psychological meanings.
However, when the vote involves debates and dissenting opinions, it is not
possible for a collective body such as an Assembly to have any intention at
all. In such circumstances, where is the legislature's sole purpose? the courts
are running after? asks Cardozo.
Gray stated that, under the
assumption that the legislature has an intention in all the problems arising
from the implementation of the law, the courts follow the intention-based
interpretation of the law. However, it is impossible for the legislator to
foresee all problems that may be faced in future and have an intent of solving
a hypothetical problem. In addition, Gray stated that what emerges from the
court room is not a legislature's intention at all, but its own.
In Geny's judgment, all statutes
shall be acts of social administration duly constituted and have the power to
issue mandatory rules. Their particular characteristics are that they shall
continue for as long as the authority remains in force without any specific restrictions
on their duration. So, for the problems that are now being faced, where is the
lawfulness of the former authority's intentions?
All these were the criticisms made by
eminent jurist on intention-based methods.
Disadvantages of literal rule of interpretation
In Literal rule of interpretation, the
judges rely on the exact wording of the statute for the case. They don’t
interpret the meaning. They won’t look beyond what has been stated. The literal
rule is, Brett M.R. says, as a basic principle that if you are interpreting
legislation or documents for the purposes of determining whether they should be
construed in accordance with the usual general meaning of these words, but do
not construe them without taking into account their normal everyday meanings
regarding the matter to which they relate.
Let’s critically examine this rule of interpretation
with a help of case law
In case of R. v. Harris[12]
the accused bit the nose of the injured party. The statute stated that the
offence was to stab or wound or cut. Under the literal rule, biting is not
cutting, stabbing or wounding. Hence the defendant was not proven guilty. This
case is a best example which says why one shouldn’t always stick with the
literal meaning of the words rather than examining it deeper. While implementing
a law, the maker might have included words in a narrow scope. When the case so
demands, the interpretation must have been done in a wider scope in order to
provide fair justice. In this case as the word biting doesn’t fall under the
ambit of the section, the accused was not convicted. This says no answer for
the affected victim. The statute should not be read as it is, it has to be read
in accordance with the situation. In this case if the statute is read
literally, then many might commit such type of offences in the future and say
that it doesn’t fall under the ambit of the statute. The judges should
interpret the law so as to provide fair decision for both the sides.
We should understand the meaning of
the statute rather than reflecting what is in it. For example, a toll means a
definite payment exacted by the state or the local authority by virtue of sovereignty.
There may be different kinds of toll such as toll through and toll traverse.
Though tolls are of different kinds and be levied in situation, it ordinarily
means the amounts which the government or local authority or a person duly
authorized by the government may collect for passages of carriages and vehicles
over a road or bridge.[13]
Rather than construing what is in the statute, the interpretation could be
keeping in mind the meaning of the statute.
One significant objection of this
rule of interpretation is that the meanings of words can change over time, and hence
literal interpretation results in unfairness. As a result, misleading
precedents may be set.
Disadvantages of strict interpretation of statutes
This interpretation would limit the
power of judicial review to that language in the law. Here the judges are
required to apply the text in question as it is, strictly interpreting this
interpretation. They should adhere to the explicit meaning in a way that does
not allow for wide interpretation or flexibility.
There are two types of statutes which
comes strict interpretation: Penal Statute and Taxing Statute.
The penal laws should be strictly construed
due to the enormous growth of crimes. But liberal interpretation can be used in
the necessary times to uphold the spirit and objectives of the statute. If, however,
strict interpretation is to be applied, it follows from a literal principle
that the law must be interpreted by reference to the ordinary and natural
nature of those words. In Motibhai v. Prasad[14] case
it was stated that in its interpretation of the Criminal Code, the court should
not attempt to supplement itself with new words. The judicial authorities are
required to interpret the criminal laws in a literal manner.
In Sakshi v. Union of India[15]
case it was held that other than those penetration mentioned in Section 375 of
IPC, other penetration cannot be included or added according to strict
interpretation and therefore, in this case the accused used other forms of
penetration not included in the section and hence he was acquitted. This means
that by strictly construing, the courts are not strict with the accused. This
may be an excuse for the accused that he may state “I did not rape the girl
under any of penetrations mentioned in the section”. The court should use
liberal interpretation in such a case so as to deviate from the literal words
of the statute and stick with its meaning in order to provide fair justice.
Strict interpretation of the tax law,
general rule is that when it comes to determining taxable persons they should
be construed with utmost precision and do not make them subject to any taxation
unless those words are explicitly levied upon them. Nevertheless, there may be
loopholes in respect of which taxpayers are allowed to take advantage of
technicality and circumvent taxation as a way contrary to the spirit of law
when strict adherence to the literal wording of the legislation is observed.
The changes in financial circumstances and commercial practices that lead to
negative effects or lack of adaptability as regards application of the
legislation would not be taken into account by a rigid reading.
A harmonious balance of the precision
that literalism offers and the need to be flexible in today's changing legal,
societal or technological landscape is a key element for efficient legislative
interpretation. In order to ensure that the continues to be both rigorous and
flexible, able to meet the needs of contemporary societies, such a delicate
balance is essential.
Conclusion:
As we conclude this exploration into
the dichotomy of legal certainty and textual rigidity in interpreting statutes
literally, the tapestry of benefits and drawbacks unfolds a narrative that
transcends rigid dichotomies. Literal interpretation expands its complexity
while providing a baseline for legal certainty, showing potential weaknesses in
adapting to the changes of today's dynamic society.
The conclusion reached is not the
final verdict, but an encouragement for a more balanced point of view. It calls
on legal scholars and practitioners to deal with the tension between certainty
and flexibility in a thoughtful way. In order to accommodate the ever-changing
needs of justice, a measured recalibration is necessary in order to overcome
the rigidity that characterises literal interpretation while providing clarity.
This Article suggests that, instead
of accepting literalism's merits without ceding to its possible limits, the
judicial community should be an architect of a flexible framework. Rather than
a static opposition, the interaction between certainty and adaptability has
been transformed into a dynamic dialogue. The conclusion is, in principle, a
call to legal professionals to be good interpreters and weaving together the
strands of certainty and flexibility into a tapestry that reflects the spirit
of law. This has the effect of encouraging a continuous conversation within the
legal community, cooperation to improve the interpretation of law and its
ability to cope with an ever-evolving society's evolving needs, thereby
preserving not only legislation as a beacon of certainty but also one that can
be resilient enough for dealing with new challenges.