Literal rule is cardinal of interpretation of statutes .courts are only permitted to depart from it in case of ambiguity .Discuss this assertion in light of three rules of interpretation of statutes?

The literal rule is one of the three main rules of interpretation of statutes, along with the golden rule and the mischief rule. The literal rule states that the courts should give the words of a statute their plain, ordinary, and literal meaning, without considering the intention of the legislature or the consequences of the interpretation.

However, the literal rule is not always followed strictly, as there are exceptions where the courts may depart from it in cases of ambiguity. The golden rule allows the courts to depart from the literal meaning of a statute if it leads to an absurd or unreasonable result. The mischief rule allows the courts to look at the purpose or intention behind a statute in order to interpret it correctly.

Therefore, while the literal rule is the cardinal rule of interpretation, the courts are permitted to depart from it in certain circumstances where following the literal meaning would lead to absurdity or where it is necessary to consider the purpose or intention behind the statute.

The assertion that the literal rule is the cardinal rule of interpretation of statutes and that courts are only permitted to depart from it in case of ambiguity is not entirely accurate.

While it is true that the literal rule is one of the primary rules of statutory interpretation, it is not the only rule, and courts are not strictly limited to departing from it only in cases of ambiguity.

Three rules of interpretation that may be considered alongside the literal rule include:

1. The purpose rule: This rule directs courts to consider the purpose or intent of the statute when interpreting its language.
2. The golden rule: This rule allows courts to depart from the literal meaning of a statute to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.
3. The mischief rule: This rule permits courts to interpret a statute in a way that addresses the mischief or problem that the statute was intended to remedy.

In practice, courts will often consider a combination of these rules when interpreting statutes. While the literal rule is a starting point, courts will not hesitate to depart from it if the purpose rule, golden rule, or mischief rule suggests that a different interpretation is more appropriate.

For example, consider the following statute:

> "No person shall drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated."

Under the literal rule, this statute would prohibit driving while intoxicated by any substance, including alcohol, drugs, or prescription medications. However, if a court were to apply the purpose rule, it might conclude that the statute was only intended to prohibit driving while intoxicated by alcohol. This interpretation would be consistent with the purpose of the statute, which is to reduce drunk driving.

Similarly, if a court were to apply the golden rule, it might conclude that the statute should not be interpreted to prohibit driving while taking prescription medications that do not impair one's ability to drive. Such an interpretation would avoid the absurd result of criminalizing people who take prescription medications as directed by their doctors.

The mischief rule could also be applied to interpret this statute. For example, if the statute was enacted in response to a problem with drunk driving, a court might conclude that it should be interpreted to prohibit driving while intoxicated by any substance that impairs one's ability to drive. This interpretation would address the mischief that the statute was intended to remedy.

In conclusion, while the literal rule is an important rule of statutory interpretation, it is not the only rule, and courts are not strictly limited to departing from it only in cases of ambiguity. Other rules of interpretation, such as the purpose rule, golden rule, and mischief rule, may also be considered when interpreting statutes.