Literal Rule of Interpretation

If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense.

It is the primary and important rule of interpretation which is laid down in the Sussex Peerage case and states that it is the only rule of construction of acts of parliament is, that they should be constructed according to indent of the Parliament which passed the act.

The words themselves alone do, in such, best declare the intention of the law giver.

The advantages of this rule are as follows:-

• enables the common man to understand the statues.
• the indent of legislature is simple and clear.
• it respect the parliamentary supremacy.
• the law is quite predictable.

Some of the disadvantages of this rule are as follows:-

• can lead to unreasonable restriction.
• English language is ambiguous.
• its application is impossible in every situation.

In CIT v. V Sundaram Iyyengar (1975) 101 ITR 764 SC, the meaning of literal rule was given in this case as, "if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court can't discard the plain meaning, even if it leads to an injustice".