The Golden rule: No hypothetical considerations-

This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result. The rule was closely defined by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Cas 61, who stated:

The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.

The rule was used in the case of Adler v George (1964) to avoid an absurd result. Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Mr Frank Adler had in fact been arrested whilst obstructing such forces within such a prohibited place (Markham Royal Air Force Station, Norfolk). He argued that he was not in the vicinity of a prohibited place as he was actually in a prohibited place. The court applied the golden rule to extend the literal wording of the statute to cover the action committed by the defendant. If the literal rule had been applied, it would have produced absurdity, as someone protesting near the base would be committing an offence whilst someone protesting in it would not.

Re Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.

The Golden rule, or British rule, is a form of statutory interpretation that allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.

It is a compromise between the plain meaning (or literal) rule and the mischief rule.

Like the plain meaning rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislature's intention, the judge can depart from this meaning.

This rule may be used in two ways. It is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some ambiguity or absurdity in the words themselves. For example, imagine there may be a sign saying "Do not use lifts in case of fire." Under the literal interpretation of this sign, people must never use the lifts, in case there is a fire. However, this would be an absurd result, as the intention of the person who made the sign is obviously to prevent people from using the lifts only if there is currently a fire nearby.

The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is obnoxious to principles of public policy, even where words have only one meaning. Example: The facts of a case are; a son murdered his mother and committed suicide. The courts were required to rule on who then inherited the estate, the mother's family, or the son's descendants. There was never a question of the son profiting from his crime, but as the outcome would have been binding on lower courts in the future, the court found in favour of the mother's family.

No doubt, grammar is a good guide to meaning but a bad master to dictate.

Strict Interpretation

Strict interpretation means each word in the statute should be interpreted by the letter and not with respect to the spirit behind the statute. A judge has to apply the text only as it is written in the statute when there is clear meaning of the text there will be no scope for any further investigation regarding the same. Here in strict interpretation, the courts will use the literal rule of interpretation.

This method is important because judges will not make any wrong inferences from statutes and will not go out from the letter of the law and the judgment will be purely based on the text of the statute. This upholds the rule of law by giving importance to the legislature that passes the laws.

If we take the example when we are dealing with the taxation provisions we can not vary from the letter of law as it is universally applicable to all the people in the nation. It is applied as per the text in order to fix the standard in society and clear all the uncertainties which may arise in the near future.

State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, 2005

In this case, it was held that the provisions of the law should be strictly constructed, it should not be let open for the court to interpret, the court cannot ignore the conditions prescribed in the provision. Wherever there is a mandatory rule it must be strictly followed, when a statute explicitly mentions the performance of a particular act in a specific way and lays down the consequences to it, that should be mandatorily followed. Cardinal rule of interpretation is that when a particular act should be done in a prescribed manner the courts cannot interpret that in any way of performance.