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

"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto">

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.