KSLU Solved Question Papers
Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2015 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation 2015 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2015 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2015 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2015 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Explain the literal rule of construction with illustrations.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: statement of the literal rule; why it is the primary rule; how the court applies it (the whole Act, definitions, ordinary and technical meaning, section 13 of the General Clauses Act); decided cases: Whiteley v. Chappell, Nelson Motis, Tolaram Relumal, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad, Sharif-ud-Din, the minority in Abhiram Singh; casus omissus and Magor and St. Mellons; when the rule gives way (Tirath Singh; Smith v. Hughes); a comparison table; merits and criticism; conclusion.
Statement of the rule
The literal rule says that the words of a statute must be given their plain, ordinary and grammatical meaning. If the words are clear, the court must apply them, even if the result seems harsh or unwise. The court is not concerned with whether the law is good. Its task is to apply what the legislature has said.
The rule is often put this way: where the language is clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to it, whatever the consequences.
Why it is the primary rule
- The words are the law. Only the enacted words went through the legislature. They are the best evidence of its intention.
- Separation of powers. The legislature makes law and the court applies it. A court that departs from clear words to reach a result it prefers is making law.
- Certainty. Citizens, lawyers and officers can read a statute and know what it means. If courts freely departed from the words, nobody could rely on the text.
- Respect for democracy. Elected representatives chose the words. Unelected judges should not replace them.
How the court applies it
- The whole Act. Words are read in the context of the Act, not in isolation.
- Definitions. If the Act defines a word, that definition applies.
- Ordinary meaning. An undefined word bears its ordinary meaning in everyday speech.
- Technical meaning. A technical word in an Act on a technical subject bears its technical meaning.
- Grammar. The ordinary rules of grammar apply. Under section 13 of the General Clauses Act 1897, words importing the masculine gender include females. The singular includes the plural, unless the context is repugnant.
Decided cases
1. Whiteley v. Chappell. In Whiteley v. Chappell, (1868) LR 4 QB 147, an Act made it an offence to personate "any person entitled to vote" at an election. The accused personated a voter who had died. The court held that a dead person is not "entitled to vote". So, on the plain words, the accused had committed no offence. The court accepted that this defeated the obvious purpose. But it would not go beyond the words.
2. Nelson Motis v. Union of India. In Nelson Motis v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1981, a government servant's removal from service was set aside by a tribunal, with liberty to hold a fresh inquiry. Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 then "deemed" him to be under suspension from the date of removal. He argued that the rule should be read down. The Supreme Court refused. It said: "if the words of a statute are clear and free from any vagueness and are, therefore, reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, it must be construed by giving effect to that meaning, irrespective of consequences".
3. Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay. In Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496, section 18(1) of the Bombay Rent Act 1947 punished a landlord who received a premium "in respect of the grant, renewal or continuance of a lease". The appellants took money under an agreement to give a lease of premises not yet built. The Supreme Court held that the words suggested an actual lease, not a promise of a future one. It refused to stretch them "in order to carry out the intention of the legislature". The conviction was set aside.
4. Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola. In Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, AIR 1961 SC 1325, betel leaf dealers claimed that betel leaves were "vegetables" exempt from sales tax. The Supreme Court gave "vegetables" its ordinary meaning in common speech: things grown in a kitchen garden or on a farm and used for the table. Betel leaves were not vegetables in that sense. The dealers' claim failed.
5. Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone. In Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303, a statute required copies of an election petition to be attested by the petitioner "under his own signature". The copies were attested by his advocate. The plain words, coupled with a provision requiring dismissal for non-compliance, decided the case. The petition was liable to be dismissed.
6. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen. In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, AIR 2017 SC 401, section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 forbade an appeal to vote on the ground of "his" religion, race, caste, community or language. By four to three, the majority read "his" purposively. Chandrachud J. wrote for the three dissenting judges. They held to the literal reading, under which "his" meant the religion of the candidate. In their view, the imperfections of the provision could not be cured by the court. The dissent is a modern statement of the literal rule.
Casus omissus: the court cannot fill gaps
A casus omissus is a case the statute has not provided for. Under the literal rule, the court cannot fill the gap. In Magor and St. Mellons v. Newport Corporation, (1951) 2 All ER 839, the House of Lords disapproved Denning L.J.'s view that judges should fill in gaps to carry out what Parliament would have wanted. A gap is for the legislature to fill.
When the rule gives way
The literal rule is the starting point, not always the end.
- Absurdity: the golden rule. In Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 830, the Supreme Court accepted that a proviso, read literally, required notice even to parties to an election petition. It departed from that reading because it contradicted the "apparent purpose of the enactment".
- Mischief: the purposive approach. In Smith v. Hughes, [1960] 1 WLR 830, the Street Offences Act 1959 punished soliciting "in a street". Prostitutes solicited from balconies and windows. The court read the words to cover them, because the mischief was soliciting addressed to people in the street.
Comparison
| Point | Literal rule | Golden rule | Mischief rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question asked | What do the words say? | Is the result absurd? | What evil was the Act meant to cure? |
| When used | Clear words | Literal result absurd | Words doubtful |
| Leading case | Whiteley v. Chappell; Nelson Motis | Tirath Singh | Smith v. Hughes |
The rule in Indian practice
Indian courts begin every question of interpretation with the literal rule. The plain meaning of the words is applied first. Other rules come in only where the words are doubtful. This is why the Supreme Court in Nelson Motis refused to read down a rule whose words were clear. The other rules are not rivals of the literal rule. They are what the court turns to when the literal rule cannot settle the case.
Merits
- It gives certainty and predictability.
- It respects the legislature's choice of words.
- It stops judges from imposing their own views.
- It encourages careful drafting.
Criticism
- Absurd results. Whiteley v. Chappell let a person escape the obvious purpose of the law.
- Words are not always clear. Many words have several meanings, so the rule may not settle the case.
- It ignores purpose. A law made to cure a mischief may be defeated by a narrow reading of its words.
- Language changes. Words used in an old Act may fit new facts badly.
Conclusion. The literal rule gives clear words their plain and ordinary meaning, whatever the result, and it is the primary rule of interpretation. The Supreme Court applies it firmly where words are clear (Nelson Motis; Ramavatar Budhaiprasad), and in penal laws it protects the accused (Tolaram Relumal). The court will not fill gaps (Magor and St. Mellons). But where a literal reading produces absurdity or defeats the plain purpose of the Act, the golden and mischief rules take over (Tirath Singh; Smith v. Hughes).
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 9 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.