Explain the rule which suggests that the 'Plain word requires no explanation' and 'Technical words be understood in technical sense only'.

Rule that suggests 'Plain Word requires no explanation' This Rule is called "Rule of Literal Construction". It is a cardinal rule of construction that a statute must be construed literally and grammatically giving the words their ordinary and natural meaning. Therefore, the language used in the statute must be construed in its grammatical sense. The correct course is to take the words themselves and arrive if possible, at their meaning without reference to cases, in the first instance. If the phraseology of a statute is clear and unambiguous and capable of one and only one interpretation, then it would not be correct to extrapolate these words out of their natural and ordinary sense. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous it is not open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction simply with a view to carrying out the supposed intention of the legislature. This principle is contained in the Latin maxim "absoluta sententia expositore non indiget" which literally means "an absolute sentence or preposition needs not an expositor". In other words, plain words require no explanation. Sometimes, occasions may arise when a choice has to be made between two interpretations- one narrower and the other wider or bolder. In such a situation, if the narrower interpretation would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, one should rather adopt the wider one. Technical words are to be understood in a Technical sense only This point of literal construction is that technical words are understood in the technical sense only. In construing the word 'practice' in the Supreme Court Advocates Act, 1951, it was observed that practice of law generally involves the exercise of both the functions of acting and pleading on behalf of a litigant party. When legislature confers upon an advocate the right to practice in a court, it is legitimate to understand that expression as authorizing him to appear and plead as well as to act on behalf of suitors in that court. (Ashwini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369).