# Rule of Reasonable (Logical) Construction
When the literal rule produces a result that defeats the intention of the legislature, the court may resort to the Rule of Reasonable Construction.
## Core Principle
> Where the words of a statute appear prima facie clear and unambiguous but, on close scrutiny, turn out to be deficient in carrying out the legislature's intention, reasonable construction must be adopted.
If the ordinary meaning contradicts the apparent purpose of the Act, the court may modify the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence.
## Three Pillars of Reasonable Construction
### 1. Narrow interpretation should not defeat the purpose
If a strict literal reading would frustrate the statute's purpose, the court may go beyond the literal words.
### 2. Effect must be given to the intention of the legislature
The court has to look at:
- Circumstances prevailing when the statute was passed,
- The need that necessitated its passing.
### 3. Sensible meaning
Words must be construed to give a rational, fair and sensible meaning.
- Default: ordinary and natural meaning.
- If words are ambiguous: discover legislative intent.
## Governing Maxim
'Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat' — 'It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void.' When interpreting a statute, it should be done in a meaningful and sensible manner so that the statute is effective rather than rendered nugatory.
## How It Differs from Literal Construction
| Aspect | Literal Construction | Reasonable Construction |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Plain words | Plain words too |
| If result is absurd or defeats purpose | Still applied | Modified to give effect to intent |
| Modification of sentence structure | Not allowed | Allowed |