Which legal principle does not hold true regarding statutory interpretation?

The principle that "all statutes must be followed strictly by courts" is, in fact, not universally true regarding statutory interpretation. While statutes are generally binding and must be enforced by courts, there are nuances to how they are applied. Courts may exercise discretion in their interpretation based on the context, purpose, and how the statute aligns with existing legal principles or public policy.

For instance, courts may engage in a discretionary process known as "judicial interpretation" when the language of a statute is ambiguous or when it conflicts with other laws or constitutional principles. This means that while statutes are to be followed, the manner in which they are interpreted can vary depending on case specifics, judicial philosophy, and jurisdictional precedents.

Hence, it's important to recognize that statutory interpretation allows for flexibility, as courts may not strictly adhere to the statute's literal wording when the application of such a strict interpretation would lead to unreasonable or unjust outcomes. This dynamic interpretation is crucial to adapting the law to changing circumstances and ensuring justice is served in individual cases.