What is the difference between literal and purposive approach to statutory interpretation?

Answer 1

Generally speaking it can be said that there are two contrasting views as to how judges should interpret a statute. Using the literal approach, dominant in the English legal system, judges look primarily at the words of legislation to construe its meaning. Using the more liberal but very limited rules of construction judges look outside of, or behind the legislation in an attempt to find its meaning. It is evident that there are several ways for statutes to be interpreted. The literal and, to a lesser extent the, golden rules look to the actual wording of the statutes. The mischief and purposive approach go beyond that. Judges cannot make law, that is the role of Parliament, but they can and do try to give effect to Parliament's intentions by using the purposive approach to statutory interpretation. This many would say, allows judges to create law, by assuming to know Parliament's true intention in a given piece of legislation or provision of it. It can be seen as the courts interfering in areas outside their remit, as per the doctrine of Separation of Powers.