Beneficial Construction of Statues

8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 1/8

Benefcial construction o Statues: in relation to study o

judicial decision in IndiaAims and Objectives : - To seek the knowledge about beneficial construction in the light of

decided cases and to list out the limitation over judiciary while interpreting a statue, where

beneficial interpretation is required.

Hypothesis : - The construction of statute must not strain the words so as include cases

plainly omitted from natural meaning of the language. If in legislation any provision is

ambiguous so that it is capable to deliver two meaning one which promotes the benefit and

other which demotes it, the former should be considered. The research is primarily doctrinal

in nature. This paper tries to e plain the relevance of beneficial construction through decided

cases. The cases referred will be from different disciplines of law so that the reader is able to

secure the point of view and overall knowledge of the topic.

The researcher would mainly involve secondary sources of data which includes articles which

have been referred through authoritative internet sources.

Review of literature : - The source used is secondary in nature. It makes the use of abundant

literature in form of books renowned authorship and authoritative internet sources. !ince the

entire research is based on analysis of judicial decision of cases relating to beneficial

construction, therefore primary sources includes mainly judicial decision.

"rticles: -

#. $eneficial %onstruction, &.' (aushik, &ublished in Institute of )udicial Training and*esearch )ournal, +arch # .

. $eneficial Interpretation in /elfare 0egislation: a study of judicial decision in India,

"kriti !hashni, The /est $engal 1ational 2niversity of )uridical !ciences,

http:33papers.ssrn.com3sol43papers.cfm5abstract6id7 899#

(umar 1ischay

$" #4 8 .



I. Introduction

$enificial legislation is a statute which implies to present an advantage on people or a class of

persons. The nature of such benefit is to alleviate said persons of grave commitments under

contracts went into by them. $eneficial construction is an interpretation to secure solution for

the victim who is unfairly precluded from claiming help. The interpretation of a statue should

be done in such a way that mischief is suppressed and remedy is advanced. The construction

of a statute must not so strain the words as to include cases plainly omitted from the natural

meaning of the language, even where the usual meaning of the words fall short of the object

of legislature, a more e tended meaning may be attributed to them, if they are fairly

susceptible to it .# It is the duty of the court to interpret a provision; especially a beneficial

provision in its widest meaning rather than to give it a restrictive meaning or else it woulddefeat the very object of the legislation. $eneficial construction means an interpretation to

promote public good and prevent misuse of power. "n interpretation which advances equity

and balance should to be favored. "lthough hardship is not a ground for striking down

legislation, but wherever possible statue should be interpreted to avoid possible hardship.

The "pe %ourt of India stated in the case of Transport Corpn of Indian v Employees State

Insurance Corpn 3 <when two views are possible on the applicability of legislation to a given

set of employees, then the view which furthers the legislative intent should be preffered to the

one which frustrate it.=

/hile construing a statue sympathy has no role to play. Though the court is bound to interpret

a statue in the light of socio-economic welfare still it cannot go beyond the scope of a statue,

influenced by sympathy .>

*?!?"*%@ +?T@'A0ABC: The research is primarily doctrinal in nature. &rimary sources

include judicial decision and bare te t which the researcher has referred. *eliance primarily

1 &.!t.). 0angan, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statute D# th edn, 0e is 1e is #>E

2 "vtar !ingh and @arpreet (aur, Introduction to Interpretation of Statute D>th edn, 0e is 1e is #>E>9

3 D E # !%% >

4 Maruti Udyog Ltd v Ram Lal ; D FE !%% 48.



on judicial te t has been put on since the paper focuses on discussing the concept of

beneficial construction in the light of decided cases. The paper will also discuss about the

limitation of the judiciary in beneficial construction of statue. *eliance on secondary sources

have put on which include books of renowned authorship and authoritative internet sources.

" detailed list of books and sources will be attached at the last of this paper.

Rules for bene cial construction of legislations.

$eneficent construction means an interpretation to promote public good and prevent misuse

of power. $eneficial provisions are added for general betterment in social interest. %ourt

should adopt constructive approach so as not to e clude such provision.F

In order to interpret a statute beneficially the courts are ought to give it the widest operation

which its language will permit. They have only to see that the particular case is within the

mischief to be remedied and falls within the language of the enactment.

/ords in the statute must be so constructed as <to give the most complete remedy which the

phraseology will permit,= so as <to secure that the relief contemplated by the statue shall not

be denied to class intended to be relieved. = It must always be kept in mind while interpreting

welfare legislation it must be interpreted only to the e tent which the language permits or

contains.

0iberal interpretation does not mean that benefit can be given contrary to the provision of the

"ct or in violation of statutory provisions. 9 /here beneficial legislation has a scheme of its

own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein the court would not travel beyond the same

and e tent the scope of statue on the prete t of e tending the statutory benefit to those who

are not covered by it. 8 In other words if the provisions of a statue is plain, unambiguous and

does not give rise to any doubt, the rule of beneficial construction could not be applied.

5 auri S!an"ar aur v State of U# D# >E # !%% , p # >

6 )ustice B.& !ingh, #rinciple of Statutory Interpretation , D# th edition 0e is 1e is # E 89

7 SR Rd!a"ris!nan v $eelamegam D 4E # !%% 9 F.

8 Supra note , &g >



@owever, if there is no doubt regarding the meaning of the provision the court could use the

rule of beneficial construction to advance the object of the "ct.

/hile construing a beneficial legislation the word of the enactment should not be rephrased

or altered. It should be done <without rewriting or doing violence to the enactments= # for

resolving an ambiguity and the literal construction when the language is clear and e plicit

cannot be given a go bye.

%ourts should not proceed with any prior presumption that a particular legislation is going to

benefit any particular party. The %ourts must interpret the legislative provisions with a view

to uphold the object and purport of the &arliament.

The %ourts cannot e pand the provision in socio-economic legislation by judicialinterpretation to level unintended by legislatures, thus provisions of the &ersons with

'isabilities D?qual Apportunuity, &rotection of *ights and Gull &articipationE "ct, # F was

held not applicable to private sectors companies .##

%ourts while using rule of beneficial construction should not be deviated due to sympathy.

!ympathy or sentiments by itself cannot be ground for passing a favourable order when there

is no legal right to support such an order. Thus in a %onstitutional $ench decision which

overruled a no of cases to the contrary in !ecretary State of %arnata"a v Umadevi # held that

those employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis by the !tate or its

instrumentalities cannot be said to be holders of a post and have no right to regulariHation

simply because they have worked for no of years, for regular appointment can be made only

consistent with "rticles #> and # of the %onstitution. #4

9 S!yam Sundar v Ram %umar , D #E 8 !%% >.

10 Steel &ut!ority of India Ltd' ( $ational Union )ater *ront )or"ers D #E 9 !%% #. !ee, "vtar!ingh and @arpreet (aur, Introduction to Interpretation of Statute D>th edn, 0e is 1e is #>E >

11 +alco Engineering ,#- Ltd' v Satis! #ra.!a"ar #ad!ye , D # E > !%% 498 paras 4#, 4

12 D E > !%% #

13 Supra note / , pg 898.



$enificial %onstruction of welfare legislation can be taken to e treme limits so as to achive

the purpose or object of the legislation .#>

Thus, while construing welfare legislation following steps should be adopted

•

liberal approach should be adopted , and• &urposive construction which would effectuate the object of the welfare legislation

should be given to the e pressions used in the statute #F.

$enificial legislation, as is well known, should not be construed in such a manner as to bring

within its ambit a benifit which was not contemplated by the legislature # .

The %ourts must be cautious while seeing that benifits conferred by welfare legislation are

not being defeated by subtle devices. It is the obligation of the court, for each situation where

ingunity is consumed to evade welfare enactment, to go behind the smoke screen and find thegenuine situation. It can go behind the structure and see the substance of e change.

14 $ational Insurance Co' Ltd' v Swarn Sing! , D >E 4 !%% 9.

15 "kriti !hashni, 0eneficial Interpretation in )elfare Legislation1 a study of 2udicial decision in India , "vailable at http:33papers.ssrn.com3sol43papers.cfm5abstract6id7 899#J last visited on 8 th +arch #F. !ee, $agpur +istrict Central Co operative 0an" v' State of Ma!aras!tra , # 89 +ah 0)F 4

16 +eddappa v $ational Insurance Co' Ltd ., D 8E !%% F F &aras > and F.



Illustrative cases

The rule of benificial construction could be better understood in the light of decided cases.

Their will be eight difrent cases, from different disciplenes of law, so as the reader is able tosecure the application of benifeicial construction. The primary rule for the application of the

rule of benificial construction is that, their should be vaugeness or ambiguity in the

legislation which is capable to give two meanings, one which serve the interest of a class of

people and other which takes away that interest.

4' #ratap Sing! v State of 5!ar"!and' 46

In the instant case the provision of the )uvenile )ustice "ct, # 8 and the provisions of

)uvenile )ustice D%ate and &rotection of %hildrenE "ct, which replaced the # 8 "ct

came up for consideration before a %onstitutional $ench. The question before the court was

that, <whether the dare of occurrence will be the reckoning date for determining the age of

alleged offender or the date when he is produced before the court3competent authority. The

main object of the "ct is to provide for the care, protection treatment, development and

rehablitation of neglected and deliquent juvenile. !ince the object behind the "ct is remidial

in nature therefore liberal construction should be provided to promote benificial object behind

this "ct. Therefore the court held that the reckoning date for determination of age of juvenile

under both the "cts is the date of offence and not the date on which he produced before the

court.

7' Union of India v #ra.!a"aran (i2ay %umar 48'

In the instant case liberal interpretation was given to !ec # 4 DcE of the *ailways "ct, # 8

which defines Kuntowards accidentL. The question before the court was whether the

e pression Kuntoward accidentL so defined will also cover the case of a passenger who fell

dowl and died while trying to board the train and his dependent would be entitled to

compensation under section # >" of the "ct. +arkendey (atju, ). held that, < $o dou.t9 it is

possi.le t!at two expression can .e given to t!e expression :accidental falling of a passenger

from a train carrying passengers;9 t!e first .eing t!at it only applies w!en a person !as

17 D FE 4 !%% FF#.

18 D 8E !%% F 9



actually got inside t!e train and t!ereafter falls down from t!e train9 w!ile t!e second .eing

t!at it includes a situtation w!ere a person is trying to .oard train and falls down w!ile

trying to do so' Since t!e provision for compensation in t!e Railway &ct is a .enificial peice

of legislation9 in our opinion it s!ould recieve a li.eral and widwe interpretation and not a

narrow and tec!nical one' <ence in our opinion t!e latter of t!e a.ove mentioned two

interpretations i'e' t!e one w!ic! advances t!e o.2ect of t!e statue and serves its purpose

s!ould .e preferred vide %unal Sing! v Union of India 4=, 0'+' S!etty v Ceat Ltd . and

Transport Corpn' of India v ESI Corpn . #=

3' Munciple Corpn' of +el!i v *emale )or"ers ,Muster Roll- 77

In the instant case the !upreme %ourt while dealing with the question as to, </hether the

female worker working on muster roll should be given any maternity benifit= interpreted

"rticle > of the Indian %onstitution along with "rticle ## of the 2nited 1ations %onvention

on all Gorms of 'iscrimination against /omen and held that >'''' t!e .enifits under t!e

Maternity 0enifit &ct9 4=/4 s!all .e provided to women ,muster roll- employees of t!e

Corporation w!o !ave wor"ing wit! t!em on daily wages' = 4 The court also stated that it is a

stale argument that, +aternity $enifit "ct, # # can be e tended only to workwomen in an

<industry= and not to the muster roll women employees of the +unciple %orporation. The

court by giving a wide interpretation to industry held that +unciple %orporation comes

within the ambit of Industry.

>. State of %arnata"a v (is!wa.!arti <ouse.uilding Coop' Society and ?t!ers 7@.

In the instant case the question before the !upreme %ourt was regarding the interpretation of

!ection F of %onsumer &rotection "ct, # 8 . !tate of (arnataka filled a cross-appeal

19 D 4E > !%% F >.

20 D E # !%% # 4.

21 D E # !%% 44

22 D E 4 !%% >.

23 Ibid pg. 4

24 D 4E !%% ># .



challenging the !ection F of the "ct by the @igh %ourt as barring the 'istrict Gorum from

e ecuting its own order. The !upreme %ourt held that the provisions of the said "ct are

required to be interpreted as broadly as possible F in favour of the consumer to achive the

purpose of the enactment but without doing voilence to the language. The %ourt on the

question of interptetation of !ec F of the "ct stated that, < Section 7A9 on a plain reading

goes to s!ow t!at t!e provision contained t!erein presupposes t!at t!e *orum or Commission

would .e entitled to execute its order' It !owever may send t!e matter for its execution only in

t!e event it is una.le to do so' Suc! a contingency may arise only in given situation .ut in our

given considered opinion t!e same does not lead to t!e conclusion t!at t!e Consumer Court

cannot execute its own order for execution to t!e civil courts' Suc! construction of Section 7A

in our opinion would voilate t!e plain language used t!erein and t!us9 must .e !eld to .e

untena.le' 7/ B

25 Ibid pg. >

26 Ibid pg. >4 .

Documents

Beneficial Construction of Statues