UploadLanguage (EN)Support
BusinessMobileSocial MediaMarketingTechnologyArt & PhotosCareerDesignEducationPresentations & Public SpeakingGovernment & NonprofitHealthcareInternetLawLeadership & ManagementAutomotiveEngineeringSoftwareRecruiting & HRRetailSalesServicesScienceSmall Business & EntrepreneurshipFoodEnvironmentEconomy & FinanceData & AnalyticsInvestor RelationsSportsSpiritualNews & PoliticsTravelSelf ImprovementReal EstateEntertainment & HumorHealth & MedicineDevices & HardwareLifestyle
Upload
Sign in
Uploaded bysreeramsaipranitha
PDF, PPTX5,374 views

LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION - PRIMARY RULE

The document discusses the literal rule of interpretation in law, emphasizing that statutes should be interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meaning without considering the lawmakers' intentions. It highlights two key case laws, Fisher v Bell and P.V. Narasimha Rao's case, to illustrate the application of the literal rule and its implications in legal judgments. The document asserts that while the literal rule is fundamental, it may not always achieve justice or reflect the intended purpose of the law.

Law◦
Download as PDF, PPTX
1 / 10
2 / 10
Most read
3 / 10
4 / 10
5 / 10
6 / 10
Most read
7 / 10
Most read
8 / 10
9 / 10
10 / 10
INTRODUCTION The literal rule of interpretation is a principle used in legal contexts to interpret statutes. It suggests that the words in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and literal meaning. This means that the court should interpret the law based solely on the wording of the statute itself, without considering intentions or purposes behind the law. It's like saying that the exact words written in the law should be followed as they are written. This rule aims to uphold the principle of certainty in the law and prevent judges from adding their interpretations to the legislation.
THEY ARE 4 RRULES OF INTERPRETATION 1.Literal rule 2.Golden rule 3.Mischief rule 4.Strict rule Now we are discussing about the literal rule.
LITERAL RULE • Literal rule we can call as also primary or fundamental rule. • Because only after the literal rule we can go to the next rule. • Sometimes they may not achieve the intention. • It also golden rule but not completely golden rule. • Literal rule is one of the golden rule. • Literal rule may not extend the level of justice sometimes. • We can getout if the literal rule dosen’t satisfy the objective of the statute / consider law.
CASE LAWS FISHER V BELL 1961 PV.NARASHIMARAO’S CASE
FISHER V BELL 1961 In this case, the defendant displayed a flick knife in his shop window with a price tag on it. The statute made it an offense to "offer for sale" certain weapons. The court applied the literal rule and held that the defendant was not guilty because the display of the knife with a price tag was not an offer for sale but an invitation to treat. This case demonstrates the technical and narrow interpretation of the literal rule.
PV.NARASHIMARAO’S CASE The PV Narasimha Rao case refers to a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India regarding the application of the literal rule of statutory interpretation. P.V. Narasimha Rao was a former Prime Minister of India who was accused in a corruption case. The case involved interpreting a provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which dealt with disqualification of Members of Parliament.
The literal rule of statutory interpretation suggests that judges should interpret the words of a statute in their plain, ordinary, and literal meaning, without considering the intention of the legislature or the consequences of the interpretation. In the PV Narasimha Rao case, the Supreme Court upheld the literal interpretation of the provision in question, stating that the words of the statute were clear and unambiguous. As a result, Narasimha Rao was disqualified from holding public office.
This case is significant because it reaffirmed the importance of adhering to the literal rule in statutory interpretation, especially in cases where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. It also highlighted the principle that judges should interpret statutes based on their plain meaning, regardless of the consequences or the identity of the individuals involved.
THANK YOU