Chapter 9 Literal/Plain Meaning Approach

Chapter 9

Literal/Plain Meaning Approach

.The Literal/plain meaning Rule of interpretation

When interpreting a statute, we look first to the plain meaning of its language[1]as Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal[2].Basically The purpose of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature[3]. and ,

“[w]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion,[4]’ also,’ If the language of the statute is unambiguous, we enforce it as plainly written. However, if a statue is susceptible to more than one interpretation, we must engage in judicial construction and interpret the statute’[5]. It is to be seen that ‘A statute that is unambiguous on its face may be rendered ambiguousby its interaction with and its relation to other statutes’[6]

We also follow that :

“The words, which are used in declaring the meaning of other words may also need interpretation and the legislature may use a word in the same statute in several different senses. In that view of the matter, it would not be correct to contend that the expression as defined in the interpretation clause would necessarily carry the same meaning throughout the statute”[7] as ‘the well-accepted principle of statutoryconstruction that requires every provision of a statute to be given effect”[8]

In the case of Technical Words ‘It is no doubt true that normally a technical meaning should be attributed rather than a common meaning to a word if the same relates to a particular trade, business or profession, art or science or words having a special meaning’.[9].

---

[1] , see United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 4-6, 117 S.Ct. 1032, 1034-35, 137 L.Ed.2d 132 (1997)

[2]  People v Hammons, 210 Mich App 554, 557; 534 NW2d 183(1995). 

[3] People v Morris, 450 Mich 316,326; 537 NW2d 842 (1995).

[4] see Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 300, 78 L,.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam)).

[5] People v Morris, 450 Mich 316,326; 537 NW2d 842 (1995).

[6] Peoplev Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997).

[7] Appeal (civil) 7533 of 1997Indian Handicrafts Emporium Vs.Union of India., Judgement 27/08/2003

[8] 14 F.C.C.R. 16,794 at 44.[part citation is given]

[9] Union of India vs. Garware Nylons Ltd. [AIR 1996 SC 3509 and Unwin vs. Hanson [1891 (2) QB 115]