National law Institute University
Xi trimester Project on Interpretation of remedial and remedial statutes
submitted by
:-
Nancy soni ba llb 22
2012
!"!#$#N! of object !%is project studies remedial and penal statutes and t%eir interpretation w%et%er liberal or strict interpretation& !%is project also studies t%e purposive approac% adopted in interpretin' t%e penal statutes wit% respect to certain case-laws
Introduction
!%e term interpretation means (!o 'ive meanin' to)& *overnmental power %as been divided into t%ree win's namely t%e le'islature+ t%e e,ecutive and t%e judiciary& Interpretation of statues to render justice is t%e primary function of t%e judiciary& It is t%e duty of t%e ourt to interpret t%e "ct and 'ive meanin' to eac% word of t%e tatute& !%e most common rule of interpretation is t%at every part of t%e statute must be understood in a %armonious manner by readin' and construin' every part of it to'et%er& !%e ma,im (" .erbis le'is non est recedendum) means t%at you must not vary t%e words of t%e statute w%ile interpretin' it& !%e object of interpretation of statutes is to determine t%e intention of t%e le'islature conveyed e,pressly or impliedly in t%e lan'ua'e used& !o ensure t%at justice is made available to all+ t%e judicial system %as been evolved in all nations& It is e,tremely important and in fact necessary also t%at t%e ourts interpret t%e law in suc% a manner t%at ensures /access to justice to t%e ma,imum& or t%is purpose+ t%e concept of /anons of Interpretation %as been e,pounded& !%e anons are t%ose rules t%at %ave been evolved by t%e udiciary to %elp ourts determine t%e meanin' and t%e intent of le'islation&
3#$#4I"5 !"!U!#
3emedial statutes are t%ose statutes w%ic% %ave come to be enacted on demand of t%e
permanent public policy 'enerally receive a
liberal
interpretation& 6n constructin' a remedial statute t%e courts ou'%t to 'ive it ‘the widest operation’ w%ic% t%e lan'ua'e of statute will permit& ourts e,ist only to see t%at a particular case is wit%in t%e misc%ief to be remedied and w%et%er it falls wit%in t%e lan'ua'e of t%e enactment& %ere are various e,amples of remedial statutes w%ic% are discussed below alon' wit% t%e case laws:
The labour and welfare legislations: !%ese le'islations s%ould be construed broadly and liberally and w%ile construin' t%em due re'ard to t%e 4irective Principles of tate Policy 7Part I.8 of t%e onstitution of India and to any international convention on t%e subject must be 'iven by t%e courts& In case of MC Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu 1 , t%e %ild 5abour 7Pro%ibition and 3e'ulation8 "ct+ 19; was construed& !%e ourt+ %avin' re'ard to t%e 4irective Principles in "rticles <97e8+ <97f8+ =7i8+ => and =? of t%e onstitution+ t%e fundamental ri'%ts in "rt& 2=+ United nation convention on t%e ri'%ts of t%e c%ild+ not only directed a survey of c%ild labour and its pro%ibition but also directed payment in monetary terms as contribution by t%e employer to t%e %ild 5abour-3e%abilitation-cum-@elfare und to t%e parentA'uardian of t%e c%ild to ameliorate poverty and lacB of funds for welfare of t%e c%ild&
Soial bene!t oriented legislations: !%ese le'islations are to ac%ieve t%e purpose of t%e enactment but wit%out any violence to t%e lan'ua'e& If a section of a remedial statute is capable of two constructions+ t%en t%at 1 "#$ 1%%1 SC &1'
construction s%ould be preferred w%ic% furt%ers t%e policy of t%e "ct and is more beneCcial to t%ose in w%ose interest t%e "ct may %ave been passed& !%e liberal construction must Dow from t%e lan'ua'e used and t%e rule does not permit placin' of an unnatural interpretation on t%e words contained in t%e enactment nor does it permit t%e raisin' of any presumption t%at protection of widest amplitude must be deemed to %ave been conferred upon t%ose for w%ose beneCt t%e le'islation may %ave been enacted& In case t%ere is any e,ception in t%e beneCcial le'islation w%ic% curtails its operation+ t%e ourt in case of doubt s%ould construe it narrowly so as not to unduly e,pand t%e area or scope of e,ception& It %as been %eld t%at a law enacted essentially to beneCt a class of persons considered to be oppressed may be compre%ensive in t%e sense t%at to some e,tent it also beneCts t%ose not wit%in t%at class+ for e,ample+ tenants and landlords&
"# 5"@ 6 3#$#4I"5 !"!U!# In Noor Saba (hatoon v. Mohd )asim*+ it was %eld t%at eEect of a beneCcial le'islation is not construed to be defeated by a subseFuent le'islation e,cept t%rou'% a clear provision& !%erefore+ t%e ri'%ts of t%e minor c%ildren+ irrespective of t%eir reli'ion+ to 'et maintenance from t%eir parents as provided in 12? of t%e riminal Procedure ode 19?< was construed not to %ave been taBen away in respect of $uslims by t%e $uslim @omen 7Protection of 3i'%ts on 4ivorce8 "ct 19;& s <7b8 of t%e "ct enables a divorced $uslim woman to claim maintenance for t%e minor c%ildren up to t%e a'e of two years only from %er former %usband& It %as been %eld t%at t%e ri'%t of c%ildren to claim maintenance under 12> r P is independent of t%e ri'%t of divorced mot%er to claim maintenance for t%e infant c%ildren and t%e former is not aEected by t%e $uslim @omen "ct 19;&
2 "I3 199? <20
7i8 Sadhoo v. +ai -al Mohd iri /or0s In t%is case t%e upreme ourt interpreted <1728 7a8 of t%e Geedi and i'ar @orBers 7onditions of #mployment8 "ct 19;;& !%is <1728 7a8 provides t%at t%e employees disc%ar'ed+ dismissed or retrenc%ed may appeal to t%e prescribed aut%ority& It was %eld t%at by t%e liberal construction of t%e section t%ere need to be no written order of termination to enable t%e employee to appeal and t%at an employee w%o was terminated by stoppin' %im to enter t%e place of worB could appeal to t%e prescribed aut%ority&
7ii8 Central $ailwa2 /or0shop, 3hasi v. 4ishwanath & In t%is case t%e Fuestion before t%e court was w%et%er time-Beepers+ w%o prepared pay s%eet of t%e worBs%op staE+ maintain leave account+ dispose of settlement case and maintain records for ot%er statistical purposes+ were worBers as deCned in t%e actories "ct 19=& H 2 deCned /as a person employed directly or t%rou'% any a'ency+ w%et%er for wa'es or not in any manufacturin' process used for a manufacturin' process or any ot%er Bind of worB incidental to or connected wit% t%e manufacturin' process& !%e court 'ave a liberal construction to t%e deCnition of worBer and %eld t%at timeBeepers were worBers bein' employed in a Bind of worB incidental to or connected wit% t%e manufacturin' process& 7iii8 Motor 5wner’s #nsurane Co -td v. 3( Modi 6 In t%is case+ t%e words /any one accident occurrin' in section 9>728 7a8 of t%e $otor .e%icles "ct 19<9 was construed& avin' re'ard to t%e beneCcial purpose of t%e "ct+ t%e words were construed to si'nify as many accidents as t%e number of persons involved in t%e accident tto enable t%e limit of 3s& 20+000 payable by t%e insurance company to apply to eac% person injured& < "I3 1990 19?1 = 19?0 "I3 = > 191 "I3 20>9
P#N"5 !"!U!#
" principle statin' t%at+ a statute enactin' an oEence or imposin' a penalty is to be strictly construed+ is not of universal application+ t%ou'% it must necessarily be observed in every case& It is now only of limited application and it serves in t%e selection of one w%en two or more constructions are reasonably open& !%e rule was ori'inally evolved to miti'ate t%e ri'our of monstrous sentences for trivial oEences and alt%ou'% t%at necessity and t%at strictness %ave now almost vanis%ed+ t%e diEerence in approac% made to a penal statute as a'ainst any ot%er statute still persists& !%e settled rule of construction of penal sections is t%at /if t%ere is a reasonable interpretation w%ic% will avoid t%e penalty in any particular case we must adopt t%at construction& If t%ere are two reasonable constructions we must 'ive t%e more lenient one& Interpretation of penal provisions must be in consonance wit% t%e principles underlyin' fundamental ri'%ts& "ny provision w%ic% Cnds an accused wit% adverse conseFuences wit%out aEordin' %im any remedy to disprove an item of evidence w%ic% stands a'ainst %is innocence+ is inconsistent wit% t%e p%ilosop%y ens%rined in "rticle 21& It was %eld by t%e upreme ourt t%at t%e courts s%ould interpret suc% a provision as to dilute it and to maBe it amenable to "rticle 21 of t%e onstitution& ailure to comply wit% a statute may attract penalty& Gut only because a statute attracts penalty for failure to comply wit% t%e statutory provisions+ t%e same in all situations would not call for a strict construction& "n interpretation w%ic% striBes a balance between enforcement of law and protection of valuable %uman ri'%t of accused 7ri'%t of privacy8 must be resorted to& Provisions of #vidence "ct+ 1?2+ state t%at t%e burden to prove t%at t%e case of t%e accused falls wit%in an e,ception to a statutory oEence+ lies on %im& Gut t%e
Fuestion w%et%er t%e defence set up by an accused is really a defence of an e,ception or a defence settin' up non-e,istence of a fact w%ic% is an in'redient of t%e oEence to be proved by t%e prosecution+ depends upon t%e construction of t%e particular statute& In applyin' and interpretin' a penal statute+ public policy is also taBen into consideration&
7i8
3( 7omba28 -td v. harti Matha Mishra9 In t%is case+ it was %eld t%at t%e e,pression /oJcer or employee of a company applies not only to t%e e,istin' oJcer or employee but also includes past oJcers or employees w%ere suc% an oJcer or employee eit%er
K wron'fully obtains possession of any property+ or K wron'fully wit%%olds t%e same after t%e termination of %is employment&
!%e e,pression would also include t%e /le'al %eirs or representatives& It was %eld by t%e court t%at t%e penal statutes s%ould not be so liberally construed wit% t%e aid of presumptions+ assumptions and implications as to rope in for t%e purposes of prosecution suc% persons a'ainst w%om t%e prosecution is not intended by t%e statute and initiation of prosecution would be violative of "rt 21 of t%e onstitution and a'ainst public policy&
7ii8 4irtual Soft S2stems -td v. C#T !%e Fuestions t%at arose before t%e upreme ourt in t%e case prior to t%e amendments by t%e inance "ct 2002 wit% eEect from 1 "pril 200< were: ; "I3 199 2<2&
K @%at was meant by t%e words /in addition to any ta, payablein t%e c%ar'in' H 2?718 7c8 7iii8L K @%at was meant by t%e term /total income in #,planation =7a8 t%ereinL
"llowin' t%e appeals+ it was %eld by t%e court t%at t%e statute cratin' t%e penalty is t%e Crst and t%e last consideration and t%e penal provision must be construed wit%in t%e term and lan'ua'e of t%e particular statute& H 2?1 of t%e "ct is a penal provision and t%ere are well establis%ed principles for interpretation of suc% a penal provision& uc% a provision %as to be construed strictly and narrowly and not widelyM wit% t%e object of advancin' t%e object and intention of t%e le'islature&
7iii8 Muniipal Corpn of elhi v. -a;mi Narain Tondon ' In t%is case+ t%e deCnition of /sale in t%e Prevention of ood "dulteration "ct 19>= was construed in t%e sense %avin' re'ard to t%e misc%ief intended to be remedied& It was %eld t%at t%e /sale in t%e "ct would include all commercial transactions w%ere under an adulterated article of food was supplied for consumption by one person to anot%er person& !%erefore+ supply or oEer of food to %otelier to a customer w%en consolidated c%ar'e was made for residence and ot%er amenities includin' food fell wit%in t%e deCnition& 7iv8 Tolaram v. State of omba2 < In t%is case+ 1 of t%e Gombay 3ents+ otels and 5od'in' ouses ? "I3 2001 ;=9& "I3 19?; ;21+ p ;2>&
3ates 7ontrol8 "ct 19=? was construed& !%is section provided t%at /if any landlord receives any Cne+ premium or ot%er liBe sum or deposit or any consideration ot%er t%an t%e standard rent in respect of t%e 'rant+ renewal or continuance of a lease of any premise+ suc% landlord s%all be punis%ed& It was %eld by t%e upreme ourt t%at t%e section did not pro%ibit t%e taBin' of money by owner of an incomplete buildin' in consideration&
PU3P6I.# IN!#3P3#!"!I6N "PP36" It is not necessary t%at courts must always favour t%e interpretation w%ic% is favourable to t%e accused and not t%e prosecution but it may also c%ose to 'o for t%e interpretation w%ic% is consistent wit% t%e object provided in t%e law& In State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy ]9 t%e e,pression /any property in section 102 of r&P&& was interpreted to be inclusive of a /banB account and %ence a police oJcer w%o was investi'atin' t%e matter was justiCed in seiin' t%e same& !%is principle was Crst e,plained by ames+ 5&& w%o stated: (No doubt all penal statutes are to be construed strictly+ t%at is to say t%at t%e court must see t%at t%e t%in' c%ar'ed as an oEence is wit%in t%e plain meanin' of t%e word used+ and must not strain t%e words on any notion t%at t%ere %as been a slipM t%at t%ere %as been a casus omissus; t%at t%e t%in' is so clearly wit%in t%e misc%ief t%at it must %ave been included if t%ou'%t of& In t%e case of =nion of #ndia v. +arsoli ev# a onstitution Genc% of t%is court
laid down: - (Gefore we embarB upon an inFuiry as to w%at would be t%e correct interpretation of ection 2- "+ we t%inB it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic principles of interpretation of statute& !%e rule stated by !indal+ in Susse; >eerage ase, 71<&&8 11 Cl ? p.<6 + still %olds t%e Celd& !%e aforesaid rule is to t%e eEect: (If t%e words of t%e statute are in t%emselves 9 719998 ? ;>&
precise and unambi'uous+ t%en no more can be necessary t%an to e,pound t%ose words in t%eir natural and ordinary sense& !%e words t%emselves do alone in suc% cases best declare t%e intent of t%e law'iver&)) It is a cardinal principle of construction of statute t%at w%en lan'ua'e of t%e statute is plain and unambi'uous+ t%en t%e court must 'ive eEect to t%e words used in t%e statute and it would not be open to t%e courts to adopt a %ypot%etical construction on t%e 'round t%at suc% construction is more consistent wit% t%e alle'ed object and policy of t%e "ct& #n (ir0ness v. 3ohn +udson ? Co. -td 1@5ord 3eid pointed out as to w%at is t%e
meanin' of /ambi'uous and %eld t%at O (a provision is not ambi'uous merely because it contains a word w%ic% in diEerent conte,t is capable of diEerent meanin's and it would be %ard to Cnd anyw%ere a sentence of any len't% w%ic% does not contain suc% a word& " provision is+ in my jud'ment+ ambi'uous only if it contains a word or p%rase w%ic% in t%at particular conte,t is capable of %avin' more t%an one meanin'&) It is no doubt true mat if on 'oin' t%rou'% t%e plain meanin' of t%e lan'ua'e of statutes+ it leads to anomalies+ injustices and absurdities+ t%en t%e court may looB into t%e purpose for w%ic% t%e statute %as been brou'%t and would try to 'ive a meanin'+ w%ic% would ad%ere to t%e purpose of t%e statute&
10 19>> 728 "55 #3a <=>&
6N5UI6N $a,well identiCes four aspects of t%e rule t%at penal statutes must be strictly construed: 1& t%e reFuirement of e,press lan'ua'e for t%e creation of an oEenceM 2& strict interpretation of t%e words settin' out an oEenceM <& fulClment to t%e letter of statutory conditions precedent to t%e inDiction of punis%mentM =& strict observance of tec%nical provisions concernin' criminal procedure and jurisdiction& "s per t%ese rules and my own understandin' " statute may in certain aspects be a penal enactment and in certain ot%ers a remedial one& In respect of t%ose provisions w%ic% are sanctioned on t%e pain of punis%ment for a crime t%e rule of strict construction in t%e limited sense may be applied& "t any rate+ as undue eEort to construe suc% a provision liberally to promote t%e beneCcent purpose be%ind it may be eEectively counter balanced on consideration t%at a breac% t%ereof leads to penal conseFuences
.
Giblio'rap%y
• •
%ttp:AAle,Fuest&inAa-'limpse-on-remedial-and-penal-statutesA %ttp:AAwww&le'alservicesindia&comAarticleAarticleAremedial-and-penalstatutes-1=?0-1&%tml
