Golden Rule Of Interpretation

The principle of grammatical interpretation has been modified to the golden rule of interpretation. In general, courts must determine the intent of the legislator giving the natural meaning of the words they use in the law, but if this leads to repugnance,  absurdity, hardship,evasion or injustice, the court must modify the meaning  to the extent that such consequences can be prevented. In fact, this rule is known as the golden rule as it solves all problems. This approach is also referred the modifying method of interpretation because the literal meaning is transformed to some degree. Thus, this rule suggests that the outcome or effect of an interpretation is worthy of much greater importance because it is a clue to the true meaning of the legislation. The assumption is that the legislature does not intend certain objects, and any construction leading to such an object should be declined. If there is more than one possible interpretation of an enactment, the court may consider the outcome of each interpretation to arrive at the true intent of the legislature.

Even if a literal interpretation may include certain consequences not intended the legislature, a court may not interpret it because there is some legitimate justification for such interpretation. Similarly, laws may be construed to a limited extent even if the language does not deliberately provide so. In certain other circumstances, statutes may be subject to limited interpretation according to their purpose, although their grammatical construction could go far beyond. Whenever more than one construction is feasible, what seems rational should be given effect. Courts will try to be away from inconvenient, unreasonable and anomalous consequences. Courts are generally reluctant to give effect to the interpretation when the result of the interpretation is apparent injustice. Likewise, construction that lead to absurd consequences deserve to be rejected. It is the court’s duty to curb all evasion for the continuation of the mischief that the statute must control.