Rule of Reasonable Construction

According to this rule, while constructing the meaning of a statute, although we utilize the common or ordinary meaning of the words used in it, it should be done while according due regard to the following:-

• The subject matter or the core concern of the act.
• The objective intended to be fulfilled by it, for example, the wrong it seeks to address.

It is the duty of the court in constructing a statute to give effect to the intention of the legislature. If, therefore, giving of literal meaning to a word used by the draftsman particularly in penal statute would defeat the object of the legislature, which is to suppress a mischief, the court can depart from the dictionary meaning which will advance the remedy and suppress the mischief.

It is only when the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship of injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence [Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC830]. 

The court explains that we should understand the intention of law, reason behind making that law. And if the meaning is absurd then we should construct its meaning within the ambit of this rule.