Case Law regarding Golden Rule

A law is the will of the legislator and the basic rule of interpretation to which all others are subordinated, and that a law must be introduced according to the intention of those who made it. The purpose of interpretation is to know the intention of the legislator. Answer: The “golden rule” is a rule in the Bible that says, “Do unto others what ye shall do unto you” (Matthew 7:12), which is a great rule, but it is not permissible to conclude arguments in civil or criminal matters. An appeal under the “golden rule” is based on a lawyer who asks the jury to put itself in the place of a party, that is, in the position of one of the parties, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether it is a criminal or civil case. This “golden rule” argument is generally recognized as inappropriate, as it encourages the jury to deviate from neutrality and decide the case on the basis of self-interest and prejudice rather than on the basis of evidence. When considering such statements, the court must determine whether an inadmissible statement has actually affected a party to the case. To determine whether the lawyer`s statements were prejudicial, it is not enough that the lawyer`s statements are undesirable or even generally condemned. The relevant question is whether counsel`s comments infected the process with injustice in such a way as to make the resulting judgment a denial of due process for the other party. The result is that the “golden rule” ultimately allows a court to openly make exceptions that are not based on the social policy underlying the law, not even on the overall effect of the words used by the legislature, but exclusively on the social and political views of the men who sit on the case. The rule was used in Adler v. George (1964) to avoid an absurd result. Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was a criminal offence to obstruct Her Majesty`s forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place.

Mr. Frank Adler had indeed been arrested when he had obstructed such forces in such a forbidden place (Markham Royal Air Force Station, Norfolk). He argued that he was not near a forbidden place because he was actually in a forbidden place. The court applied the golden rule to extend the literal wording of the law to the act committed by the defendant. If the literal rule had been applied, it would have led to absurdity, because someone protesting near the base would commit a crime while someone protesting inside would not. The golden rule can be proposed as a compromise between the literal rule and the absurd rule. He follows the path of literal interpretation by giving status its ordinary meaning. At the same time, if the literal interpretation leads to an irrational outcome that is unlikely until the end of the action, the court may deviate from the literal meaning. Also in use, adheres to public order.

[11] The Golden Rule approach, which states that the wording of a statute must be interpreted in such a way that no manifestly absurd result results from an interpretation. We could call this the “reasonable interpretation” approach. General words derive their meaning from specific words. In Grundi v Great Boulder Proprietary Cold Mines Ltd.[27], Lord Greene M.R. stated: “Although 38 absurdities or non-absurdities of one conclusion, as veiled by another, can and are very often useful to the court in choosing between two possible meanings of ambiguous words. The golden rule of construction is a doctrine that must be applied with great care, remembering that judges can be fallible in this matter of absurdity and, in any case, must not be applied in such a way that the language is twisted in a way that it cannot bear. It is a doctrine that should not be used to rewrite language in a different way than it was originally formulated. In State Bank of India v.

Shri N. Sundara Money,[26] the Supreme Court stated that “it is the duty of all courts to ensure the general good of the community that difficult cases do not make a bad law. Referring to previous cases, the Court has held that absurdity must be understood in the same sense as repulsion, that is, something that would be as absurd as repulsion in relation to the other words of the law Over the years, eminent jurists have divided their thoughts on the golden rule of interpretation, whether through judgments or books. The “golden rule” gives a court the opportunity to publicly create exceptions that are not based on the social purpose of the law, or even on the consequences of the formulations used by the legislature, but exclusively on the social and political perceptions of the judges who deal with these difficult cases. The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of legal construction traditionally applied by English courts. The rule may be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a law where such an interpretation would lead to manifest absurdity or a result abhorrent to the principles of public policy.