- GOLDEN RULE REGARD TO CONSEQUENCES

Regard to Consequences
The Golden Rule is a modification of the

literal rule i.e. where the literal rule fails, to

bring out the real intention of the legislature, the
golden rule is applied.
The golden rule allows a judge to depart
from a words normal meaning only in
order to avoid an absurd result.
If the language used is capable of bearing more
than one construction, in selecting the true
meaning regard must be had to the
consequences resulting from adopting the
alternative constructions.

Regard to Consequences

Regard to Consequences

Golden
Rule
purports
to avoid
such
results

Golden rule comes in between the two rules but is not a compromise between them

Literal

Circumstances of use
Golden rule gives words their plain, ordinary meaning

Something which was

unlikely to be the
legislative intention

History and evolution

The rule is usually based on part of

Becke v Smith (1836) per Justice Park,

which states:
It is a very useful rule in the
construction of a statute to adhere to
the ordinary meaning of the words used,
and to the grammatical construction,
unless that is at variance with the
intention of the legislature to be
collected from the statute itself, or
leads to any manifest absurdity or
repugnance, in which case the language

History and evolution

Becke v. Smith (1836)

Justice Park

Grey v. Pearson (1857) Lord

Wensleydale

Hardship,

Injustice,
Absurdity,
Anomaly,
Inconvenience,
Repugnance to be Avoided

Sensible Interpretation Rule

For Instance
U.P.

There is a presumption that law makers

enact laws which the society considers as
honest, fair and reasonable

Another instance
The provision reads

Lee v. Knapp

Lee v. Knapp
Construction of the word

The Court arriving at the

decision

Therefor
e...

Central India Spinning Weaving & Manufacuring

Co. Nagpur v. Mun. Comm., Wardha

Sec. 66(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities

The Supreme Court held

V.V.Shivprasad v. Kothuri
Venkateshwarlu
Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856

Prohibits
Bigamy

Widows rights on her

deceased husbands
property ceases on
remarriage

V.V.Shivprasad v. Kothuri
Venkateshwarlu
In this case, marriage of a Hindu widow

with a person whose first wife was

therefore held to be an invalid marriage.
Still, it was held that such a marriage

amounted to re-marriage within Sec.2 of

the 1856 Act and the widow ceased to hold
any rights in the property of her deceased
husband.

The Court: Sensible Meaning

has to be given
The Act prevents double benefit

Avoid Construction which

leads to anomalies
Clear & gross anomaly

Nyadar Singh v. Union of India

The Matter

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellants

The
Respondents

Due to the penalty,

The word reduction

they were reduced

in rank to posts
lower than the one
to which they were
initially recruited.
Hence,

inappropriate
construction.

in rank is distinct
from reversion as
the
former
was
imposed by way of
penalty.
Hence, reduction in
rank to a post below
the one that the
appellant
initially
held was appropriate.

Reversion & Reduction in

post

The Supreme Court noted

ILLUSTRATION

Thereforethe court held

A

person initially recruited to a

higher time scale, grade, post or
service cannot be reduced to a post
in a lower time-scale, grade, post or
service or to a lower post.

Though the language of the rule is

wide, a restricted construction was

placed to avoid the anomaly which a
wider
construction
would
have
produced.

S.Narayanswami v. G.
Pannerselvam
FACTS

Observations of the
Supreme Court

Graduates are not an occupational or vocat

Observations of the Supreme

Court
Legislative Council Elections qualifications in Art.171(3)

Observations of the Supreme

Court
The High Court erroneously travelled

outside the four corners of the

statutory provisions when there was
no ambiguity at all in the language,
and by resorting to a presumed
legislative
intent,
it
added
a
qualification to those expressly laid
down in the Constitution and other
statutory provisions contravening the
rule of plain meaning.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Applying the rule with caution

Applying the rule with caution

Individual cases of hardship or

injustice have no bearing for

rejecting natural construction,
and it is only when the natural
construction leads to a general
hardship or injustice and some
other construction is reasonably
open
that
the
natural
construction may be departed
from.