Golden Rule of Interpretation how far is it Golden?

My Dear Assumi Sir,

Some judges have suggested that a court may depart from the ordinary meaning where that would lead to absurdity. In Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61, Lord Wensleydale said:

"… 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 that absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther."

This became known as "Lord Wensleydale's golden rule". It only applies where the words are ambiguous. An interpretation that is not absurd is to be preferred to one that is. An example is:

R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367.

The Law Commission (1969) noted that:

* The rule provided no clear means to test the existence of the characteristics of absurdity, inconsistency or inconvenience, or to measure their quality or extent.
* As it seemed that "absurdity" was in practice judged by reference to whether a particular interpretation was irreconcilable with the general policy of the legislature "the golden rule turns out to be a less explicit form of the mischief rule".

Case Laws:

 

R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367

The defendant was married and married again (bigamy). It was an offence for a married person to “marry” again unless they were widowed or divorced. When caught the defendant argued that he did not commit this offence as the law regarded his second marriage as invalid. The court held that the word “marry” could also mean a person who “goes through a ceremony of marriage” and so the defendant was guilty.

 

Re Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89.

The defendant had murdered his mother. She did not have a will and he stood to inherit her estate as next of kin, by being her “issue (ie son or daughter)”. The court applied the golden rule and held that “issue” would not be entitled to inherit where they had killed the deceased.

 

Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7.

It was an offence to obstruct military force “in the vicinity of ” a prohibited place. The defendants had obstructed the military Forces in a prohibited place (an army base) and argued that they were not liable. The court found them guilty as “in the vicinity of” meant near or in the place.

The Golden Rule or Modifying Rule:
The so called “Golden Rule “ is really a modification of the literal rule. The
purpose & meaning of the “Golden Rule” was made clear by Parke B in the case of Black
V. Smith.

Till If you are unsattisfied look at the below cases:

CASES:
1. Workmen of Dmakuch Tea Estate V. Mgt. AIR 1958 SC 353
2. Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti V. Brij Kishore AIR 1988 SC 2239
3. Ramji Misser V. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1088
4. Karnail Singh V. Moinder Kaur AIR 2003 P & H 135
5. State of U.P. V. Synthetics & Chemical Limited AIR 1980 SC 614
6. Lee V. Knapp (1967) 2 Q.B. 442
7. Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. V. Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P.
AIR 1981 SC 1656
8. Nokes V. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries (1940) AC 1014

Shree Sir, honestly that is simply magnificient. Now, if the judges attempt to avoid absurdty in the golden rules can we not employ a fiction nd say that dog means a cat?

ASSUMI SIR,

Believe me  or not the same question arises in my mind and i am searching after posting reply to the forum after searching , I luckily found the below points ,Please tell me wheather I am right or wrong?

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SC 3609 in para 22-23 observed as follows:

“22. In Garikapatti Veeraya vs. N.Subbiah Choudhury, 1957 SCR 4888: (AIR 1957 SC 540 ), the Chief Justice S.R. Das speaking for the Court observed as follows (at p.553 of AIR):

‘The golden rule of construction is that, in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the Act was passed.’

 We may also refer to Francis Benion’s Statutory Interpretation, 2nd Edn., at p. 214 wherein the learned author commented as follows:

‘The essential idea of a legal system is that current law should govern current activities. Elsewhere in this work a particular Act is likened to a floodlight switched on or off, and the general body of law to the circumambient air. Clumsy though these images are, they show the inappropriateness of retrospective laws. If we do something today, we feel that the law applying to it should be the law in force today, not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it. Such, we believe, is the nature of law. Dislike of ex post facto law is enshrined in the United States Constitution and in the Constitutions of many American States, which forbid it. The true principle is that Lex prospicit nonrespicit (law looks forward not back). As Willes, J.said, retrospective legislation is ‘contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.”

Shee Sir, thank you so much for enriching me with your valuable store of knowledge in the matter. Keep up this excellent hard work earned through blood,sweat and tears. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 GOOD CONTRIBUTION FROM SHREEJI & ASSUMI, KEEP IT UP.

 GOOD CONTRIBUTION FROM SHREEJI & ASSUMI, KEEP IT UP.

Mr Shree, Assumi and others are requested to visit to the page;

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/messages/2009/12/11629_retrospective_legislation_andamp_amendment_to_hindu_successionact.asp

Ramesh Sir, thank you for the feed back with the link.

GOOD WORK---- BEST EFFORT IS VISIBLE