Third, because of the culmination of the above reasons, the Golden Rule serves as an excuse for the judge to depart from the guidelines. It allows the judge to make exceptions that do not coincide well with the policy underlying the law, but are based on his or her social and political views. Thus, the judge`s bias can find a way to enter the scene thanks to this power of interpretation. Take, for example, the case of prostitution discussed above. There are laws that prohibit the consumption of cigarettes in public, as in the case of prostitution. A case is before the Court, which must now decide whether the accused is guilty of violating a particular section of the law. Well, if the judge personally believes that smoking is not that bad, he could limit the meaning of « roads » in this case. Therefore, the application of the golden rule of interpretation depends on the wisdom and integrity of the judges. According to Maxwell, « the golden rule is that the words of the institute must prima facie have their ordinary meaning. » There are three rules, the literal rule, the golden rule and the rule of woe. Each nation has its own legal system, the purpose of which is to grant justice to all.
The Court seeks to interpret the law in such a way as to guarantee justice for every citizen for all. In order to do justice to all, the concept of canons of interpretation has been explained. These are the rules that are developed to determine the real intention of the legislator. In 1857, Lord Wensleydale first introduced the Golden Rule of Interpretation in Grey v. Pearson. [7] After that, this rule became famous as the Wensleydale Golden Rule. In India, there are several good examples where the Supreme Court or Supreme Courts have applied the gilded construction of laws. Some confusion can be felt when it seems that even for the literal rule, this rule is named. Since the golden rule begins first with the search for the literal meaning of determination, and if there is a clear, clear and natural meaning and not an abomination, the uncertainty of absurdity appears, apply the meaning. But if there is the possibility of more than one meaning, we must go further to avoid the disadvantages by even changing the language by adding, rejecting or replacing words to accurately explain the meaning of Parliament`s intent.
[15] The interpretation of the golden rule of law allows deviation from the ordinary meaning of one or more words if the overall content of the document so requires. It states that if the literal rule creates an absurdity, the court should look for a different meaning of the words to avoid this absurd result. The grammatical and ordinary meaning of words must be respected, unless this leads to some absurdity, disgust or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument; In this case, the grammatical and ordinary meaning of the words can be changed to avoid absurdity and inconsistency, but no more. [9] As a result, the « Golden Rule » ultimately allows a court to openly make exceptions that are not based on the social policies underlying the law, or even on the overall effect of the words used by Parliament, but solely on the social and political views of the men who happen to be involved in the case. In U.S. v. Palma, while the Eighth Judicial District condemned the Golden Rule, noted that « a so-called Golden Rule argument, which asks jurors to put themselves in the shoes of one party, is generally condemned because it encourages the jury to deviate from neutrality and decide the case based on personal interests and prejudices. rather than evidence. Earl T. Crawford wrote in his book « The Construction of Statutes » that the first source of interpretation should be sought from the terms of the Statute. Subsequently, the significance identified should be considered in the context and purpose of the Order. If the intention of the legislator is still unclear, the various external sources of support can be consulted.
In this case, the rules of interpretation are the external source of support. The word « absurdity » is a vague term and appears only in a few cases where it is necessary for the court to apply the golden rule of interpretation. The Golden Rule suffers from the same problems as the literal approach, i.e..dem the lack of a broader contextual understanding of « meanings ». Most cases contain difficult scenarios where decisions about many credible arguments have to be made, not scenarios where the wording of the law leads you to obvious ambiguities. [32] In State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money (1976), the Supreme Court held that public rights are of paramount importance and superior to individual rights. If the terms of the law are absurd in the context of the case, they should be considered repugnant to apply the golden rule of interpretation. Due to the possibility of misinterpretation, the Golden Rule is not a perfect tool. It cannot always be used to eliminate nonsense in the clear sense of the law. For this reason, several lawyers have developed their own procedure for applying the rule in order to make it more effective. The rule has been used and modified by judges in various cases for decades and is still enforced today because it has stood the test of time.
Marcus George Singer observed that there are two different important views on the Golden Rule: (1) that you perform certain actions that you want others to do to you, or (2) that you direct your behavior in the same general way that you expect from others. [95] Counterexamples to the Golden Rule are generally stronger against the former than against the latter. The golden rule of interpretation was used in Grey v. Pearson by Lord Wensleydale in 1957. That is why it is also known as the Wensleydale Golden Rule. This rule is the modification of the literal rule. The Golden Rule modifies the wording of words in a statute to successfully interpret the actual meaning of the law. It takes into account the context in which the words are used so that justice can be done to the intent of the law. It should be noted that the rule can only be used if the language of the law is ambiguous or grammatically incorrect. Therefore, judges must be extremely careful in their interpretation and exercise this power only when absolutely necessary. In Lee v. Knapp,[17] section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 stated that « a driver causing an accident shall stop after the accident », the interpretation of the word « stop » was questionable.
In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after an accident and then fled. Applying the golden rule, the court found that the driver had not complied with the requirement of the section because he had not stopped for a reasonable time to allow interested persons to inquire about the accident at the scene of the accident. Justice in India plays a huge role in ensuring fair and equitable treatment of people. His decisions affect people in more ways than one. That is why only people with the requisite intelligence and experience are selected as judges in the courts.
