Golden Rule Of Interpretation With Reference To Article 21

Kritika Bansal & Shriram Nagayach, BA LLB (Crl) Hons., UPES, Dehradun

ABSTRACT

The scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which secures two rights namely, Right to Life and Right to Personal Liberty, has been widened and has been interpreting the right to life from mere physical existence to include finer values of life and right to proper healthy livelihood, and the right to personal liberty has been interpreted to include right to privacy, right to travel abroad, and various others. The framers of the Indian Constitution kept basic human rights in mind and, influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), provided for the protection of life and personal liberty of every citizen. Article 21 is applicable to both citizens and non-citizens. This is because Article 21 protects basic human rights and such rights shall apply without discrimination of any kind, including citizens and non-citizens. Traditionally, the Article had a narrow interpretation, but with time and more broad interpretation of the Article, and by applying the purposive construction approach of interpretation, whereby the purpose of the statute’s creation is kept in mind and taken into consideration, Article 21 is being interpreted in a very broad scope. In construing the right to life and the right to personal liberty under the constitution, the court shifted from a typical pedantic to a purposeful approach.

The Golden rule of interpretation is the deviation from the literal rule of interpretation. We use the Golden Rule of Interpretation to avoid any conflict in law interpretation, as well as vagueness or absurdity. When the literal rule of Statute Interpretation leads to a meaning that is ambiguous or does not correlate with the motivation behind the drafting of the legislation, the Golden Rule of Interpretation is preferred. The meaning of “vague” or “inconsistency” is such that when a certain type of interpretation produces consequences that the court believes are not up to what the law was designed for, it is considered “vague.” Then the court can deviate from the plain meaning in order to give the statute appropriate interpretation and justice. The process of interpreting statutes begins with giving the wordings of the legislation their literal meaning. If such literal interpretation leads to absurdity, the interpretation will be amended in order to properly carry out the delivery of justice or if it is inconsistent with the genuine intention for which such statute was made.