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 .
8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 2/8
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.
8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 3/8
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 >
8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 4/8
@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.
8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 5/8
$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.
8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 6/8
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
8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 7/8
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 !%% ># .
8/18/2019 Beneficial Construction of Statues
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beneficial-construction-of-statues 8/8
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 .