golden rule

The golden rule is a modification of the literal rule. The ordinary meaning of the words is followed unless it leads to an absurdity, repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the statute, in which case the words may be modified just enough to avoid that result, and no further. It was stated by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v. Pearson (House of Lords, 1857).

There is a narrow approach, choosing between two possible meanings of the words, and a wide approach, modifying the words to avoid a repugnant result, as in Re Sigsworth (1935), where a son who murdered his mother was not allowed to inherit from her despite the literal words of the statute. Indian courts apply the rule but stress that the absurdity must be real, not a matter of judicial preference.

Example

Using the golden rule, the court read “vehicle” so as not to include a child's toy car, since the literal meaning would produce an absurd result.

In Indian law

• Grey v. Pearson (House of Lords, 1857)

See also

literal rule · mischief rule · purposive interpretation · harmonious construction

Read more in the study notes

• The literal rule and the golden rule (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
• Prospectus: contents, kinds and liability for misstatement (Company Law)
• Double entry system, types of accounts and the rules of debit and credit (Financial Accounting)
• Meaning of statute and purpose of interpretation (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
• The mischief rule (Heydon's case) and purposive construction (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
• Presumptions in statutory interpretation (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)