This Project has been submitted by
Abhishek Verma ID No: 21305
!n Inter"retation o# $tatutes
Durin% the &onsoon $emester 2015'201(
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
I.INTRODUCTION The purpose of interpreting statutes is to get what the legislature intene while writing the pro!isions. For this "ui#iar$ ta%e resort to literal interpretation& 'ut so(eti(es a part of statute '$ wa$ of literal interpretation estro$s the true purpose of the law. B$ wa$ of gi!ing that part li'eral interpretation the logi#al efe#t #an 'e re#tifie an the latent intent of the legislature 'ehin the statue of law #an 'e gi!en effe#t. In leaing #ases "ui#iar$ has gi!en li'eral interpretation to the statues so as to a!an#e su'stantial "usti#e. Instea of gi!ing narrow (eaning to the ter(s of the statues& the$ are gi!en wier (eaning. Co((on law re#ogni)es two #anons of li'eral interpretation* one is the li'eral #onstru#tion of re(eial laws an the other that all laws shoul 'e li'erall$ #onstrue. Interpretation of pro#eural ena#t(ent shoul 'e li'eral for the enfor#e(ent of su'stanti!e rights. All the pro!isions that pro!ie for the prote#tion of funa(ental hu(an rights shoul 'e gi!en li'eral interpretation. Stri#t #onstru#tion of welfare& so#ial an 'enefi#ial statues shoul 'e a!oie an this prin#iple is 'eing pro(ote '$ (an$ states as the$ are re"e#ting stri#t #onstru#tion. Re(eial or 'enefi#ial statutes are those whi#h in orer to 'ring out so(e so#ial refor( are ire#te to #ure the i((eiate (is#hief #ause to a parti#ular group of persons to a(eliorate their #onitions.+ Uner li'eral interpretation pu'li# a#ts are gi!en (ore i(portan#e than the pri!ate a#ts& that,s wh$ in the #onition of #onfli#ts 'etween pu'li# an pri!ate interests& pu'li# interest were to 'e fa!ore o!er pri!ate interests. In this pro"e#t author has e-plaine ifferent aspe#ts of li'eral interpretation of re(eial statues. Different re(eial an welfare statutes are ta%en into #onsieration while arri!ing at the #on#lusion. For that (atter author rea#he the final stage '$ the wa$ of anal$sis of pre#eents set '$ Supre(e Court of Inia relate to li'eral interpretation of welfare an re(eial ena#t(ents.
1 Central Railwa$ or%shop& /hansi !. 0ishwanath& AIR +123 SC 455.
II.6RINCI6LE OF BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION The 'asi# unerl$ing prin#iple of interpretation of re(eial statues is that the$ shoul 'e interprete li'erall$ '$ gi!ing the wiest possi'le (eaning to the pro!isions. In the #onition when the pro!ision is a('iguous an (ore than one interpretations are possi'le than the interpretation whi#h is fa!ora'le to a group of people shoul 'e #hosen in orer to satisf$ the intent of the legislature. Rights of the people shoul alwa$s 'e interprete in a wie sense while the e-e(ptions shoul 'e gi!en stri#t interpretation. As RTI is a re(eial statue the a'o!e(entione prin#iple shoul 'e applie while interpreting the sa(e. An infor(ation e(ane '$ the person shoul 'e pro!ie to hi( to su#h an e-tent whi#h #oul satisf$ hi( without 'rea#hing his rights. State(ents of O'"e#ts an Reasons of RTI a#t spe#ifi#all$ in#lues in itself the prin#iple of 78a-i(u( is#losure an (ini(u( e-e(ptions,. These are the prin#iples whi#h "ui#iar$ is o'ligate to follow while interpreting RTI.9 The o'"e#ti!e 'ehin the Inustrial Disputes a#t +142 is to enhan#e the wor%ing #onitions of inustrial la'ors& pro!ie the( with orinar$ a(enities of life an pro(otion of inustrial pea#e. To further the o'"e#ti!e of the statute& it shoul 'e interprete li'erall$ to satisf$ the o'"e#ti!es #onte(plate in state(ents of o'"e#ts an reasons.: In Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-op Marketingcum-Processing Service Society ltd 4 while ealing with the inustrial ispute& #ourt e(phasi)e on the o#trine of so#ial "usti#e. In #ase of two interpretation& one whi#h further the o'"e#ti!e of the ena#t(ent shoul 'e #hosen;.
2 Jayashree Palande, Refections on the Refected 112 (2007) 3 8 N Rao& A(ita Dhana& N S Binra,s Interpretation of Statues :49 =9332> 4 A"ai' Singh !. Sirhin Co?op 8ar%eting?#u(?6ro#essing Ser!i#e So#iet$ lt& =+111> @ SCC 59. 5 Transport Corpn of Inian !. E(plo$ees, State insuran#e #orpn an anor =9333> + SCC 49@.
In Chotilal Sowcar v. awanraj! " #ourt while interpreting wor 7suit, uner S.9 =+> of Usurious Loans A#t& +1+5 too% the li'eral approa#h an hel that so as to gi!e relief fro( pa$ing usurious interest& it shoul 'e interprete as in#luing referen#e uner s :3 of Lan a#uisition a#t& +514. hile holing that& #ourt relie on pre#een#e that& where the statute '$ #onferring propriet$ rights on tiller of soil tens to 'enefit hi(& the rele!ant pro!isions shoul 'e interprete to the 'enefit of tiller .2
III.INTER6RETATION OF RE8EDIAL STATUTES The purpose of re(eial statutes is a!an#e(ent of hu(an rights an relationships& an re(eial interpretation #an onl$ 'e grante if the statute satisfies these o'"e#ti!es.5 hile interpreting re(eial statutes #ourt nee to gi!e the wiest operation whi#h its language will per(it. The$ ha!e onl$ to see that the parti#ular #ase is within the (is#hief to 'e re(eie an falls within the language of the ena#t(ent.1 It shoul 'e #onstrue in a wa$ that the wors will gi!e the (ost possi'le re(e$ per(itte '$ the phraseolog$.+3 This prin#iple has 'een freuentl$ use '$ #ourts in e#iing !arious #ases. 8aras
6 Chotilal Sow#ar !. /awanra"& AIR +1@@ 8a :9. 7 hushi Ra( !. /aswant Rai& @5 6un" LR 199. 8 8 N Rao& A(ita Dhana& N S Binra,s Interpretation of Statues :49 =9332> 9 Sa$a 8ir U"(uin han !. iaulnisa Begu(& =+521> ILR : Bo( 499. 10 Law$ers Clu' Inia& #nterpretation o$ Statutes & August ++& 93+;& a!aila'le at httpGGwww.law$ers#lu'inia.#o(Garti#lesGInterpretation?of?Statute?;4:3.asp
11 Nara$anaswa(i Reiar !. 6a(ana'han& AIR +1@@ 8a :14.
If we tal% a'out RTI& it is not wholl$ re(eial as so(e pro!isions of it are penal in nature also. As penal statues #annot 'e interprete li'erall$& the$ nee to go through stri#t interpretation. As RTI is partl$ re(eial an partl$ penal it 'e#o(es iffi#ult to appl$ a single #anon of #onstru#tion& so e(phasis shoul 'e gi!en to intention of the legislature while interpreting its pro!isions. /ui#iar$ shoul %eep in (in while interpreting RTI that the latent intention of the legislature 'ehin su#h ena#t(ent is to pro!ie re(e$ to the aggrie!e person 'ut not to punish a efaulting offi#er. Another re(eial statute& the Uttar 6raesh De't Ree(ption A#t +143 shoul 'e #onstru#te so as to pro(ote the o'"e#t of the legislature whi#h was %ept in (in while ena#ting the statute. It was hel in % Chotey &al v. 'a(ul )ahman *han" wa%f estate was entitle to get reu#tions in lo#al rate pa$a'le on the ite(s of propert$ on whi#h no re!enue was #olle#te. This e#ision was 'ase on the li'eral interpretation of E-planation II of efinition of 7Agri#ulturist, gi!en uner S 9=:> of the Uttar 6raesh De't Ree(ption A#t +143& whi#h in#lue 'oth lanlor who a#tuall$ pa$s the lan re!enue as well as lanlor who is assu(e to pa$ lan re!enue. I0.ANALHSIS OF CASES ON LIBERAL INTER6RETATION OF ELFARE LEISLATIONS hile interpreting the welfare legislations li'eral approa#h is to 'e aopte an the e-pression use in the welfare legislation shoul 'e gi!en purposi!e #onstru#tion.+9 All the welfare legislations are for the pro(oting general welfare an prote#tion of so#ial an e#ono(i# rights of the #iti)ens& so the$ shoul 'e gi!en li'eral an wie interpretation.+: Inustrial Dispute A#t +142 is a prin#iple e-a(ple of welfare statute an #ourt in interpreting wors li%e 7or%(an, an 7Inustr$, uner this a#t has in (an$ #ase laws has aopte li'eral approa#h to satisf$ the o'"e#t of this welfare legislations. These wors are essential in Inustrial Dispute A#t& hen#e nee to 'e #onstrue li'erall$. But these efinitions ha!e 'een interprete ifferentl$ in (an$ #ases. Definition of 7inustr$, is gi!en
12 Nagpur Distri#t Central Co?operati!e Ban% !. State of 8aharashtra& +152 8ah L/ ;1: 13 !riti "hashni, Benefcial Interpretation in Welare Legislation: Study o Judicial Decisions in India 2#3 (""R$, 2013)
in s 9 =">. In +, %anerjee v. P) Mukherjee4 (uni#ipal a#ti!it$ was regare as 7inustr$, espite the fa#t that it is not #onsiere as trae or 'usiness a#ti!it$. So li'eral approa#h was pra#ti#e to 'ring (uni#ipal a#ti!it$ uner the pur!iew of 7inustr$,. Finall$ after flu#tuating s#ope of 7inustr$, efine '$ Supre(e Court was finall$ gi!en an e-pane an li'eral interpretation in lan(ar% "ug(ent of %angalore ater Supply and Sewerage %oard v. A. )ajappa/. Supre(e Court while e#iing the #ase hel that& a statute (eant for the welfare of wor%ers shoul 'e #onstrue li'erall$ an wiel$& so that wor%ers or si(ilar #o((unit$ #an eri!e (a-i(u( 'enefit out of it. /usti#e . I$er o'ser!e 0he literal latitude o$ the words in the de$inition cannot be allowed grotes1uely in$lationary play" but must be read down to accord with the broad industrial sense o$ the nation2s economic community o$ which labor is an integral part. 0o bend beyond credible limits is to break with $acts" unless language leaves no option.3! or 7wor%(en, is efine in s 9=s> of inustrial Dispute A#t& +142 an this also is a su'"e#t (atter of #ontro!ers$. In ,ational %uilding Construction v. Pritam Singh ill 5 Supre(e #ourt ha to e#ie whether the wor%(en who were is(isse prior to the ate of appli#ation uner s :: C =9> also #o(es uner the pur!iew of 7wor%(en, as efine in s 9 =s>. Supre(e Court re"e#ting the argu(ent that after is(issal efenant #ease to 'e wor% (en& hel that the purpose of the pro!ision is to pro!ie aggrie!e wor%(en with an alternati!e #ourt& hen#e shoul 'e #onstru#te li'erall$ to suppress the (is#hief. Thus& Supre(e Court use 'enefi#ial #onstru#tion to safeguar the interest of the wor%(en. 8aternit$ Benefit A#t +1@+ is another welfare legislation s ; of whi#h (a%es e(plo$er lia'le to pa$ (aternit$ 'enefit to a wo(en e(plo$ee at the rate of a#tual ail$ wage for 7the perio of her a#tual a'sen#e i((eiatel$ pre#eing an in#luing the a$ of her eli!er$ an for siwee%s i((eiatel$ following that a$,. Court gi!ing 'enefi#ial #onstru#tion to s ; of this A#t& 14 DN Baner"ee !. 6R 8u%her"ee& AIR +1;: SC ;5 15 Bangalore ater Suppl$ an Sewerage Boar !. A. Ra"appa & AIR +125 SC ;45 16 #d. 17 National Builing Constru#tion !. 6rita( Singh ill& AIR +129 SC +;21
hel that Suna$s (ust also 'e in#lue as the A#t is ena#te to 'enefit of wo(en wor%er so as to pro!ie wage for her issipate energ$& to nurture her #hil an to preser!e her effi#ien#$.+5 In an another #ase+1 of li'eral interpretation gi!en to a 'enefi#ial statute& Supre(e Court Interprete 7Untowar A##ient, #ontaine in S +9: =#> of Railwa$s A#t& +151 to in#lue 7a##iental falling of a passenger fro( a train #arr$ing passengers,. Supre(e #ourt #onsiering it as a 'enefi#ial legislation hel that in spite of gi!ing it a narrow interpretation whi#h woul onl$ in#lue a##ient when the passenger was tra!eling in the train& it shoul 'e gi!en a li'eral #onstru#tion to in#lue a##ients #ause while 'oaring a train to wien the s#ope of the re(eies that the statute intene to pro!ie. /u!enile /usti#e A#t 9333 is another aition to the list of 'enefi#ial legislations. The earlier A#t of +15@ efine 7"u!enile, a person not ha!ing attaine si-teen $ear of age in #ase of a 'o$& an a person not ha!ing attaine age of eighteen $ears in #ase of a girl. A#t of 9333 repla#e it efine "u!enile as a person who has not #o(plete age of eighteen $ears of age.93 hen the issue #a(e 'efore the #ourt in the #ase of Pratap Singh v. State o$ harkhand 6 #ourt #onstrue it li'erall$ in orer to further the o'"e#ti!es of the ena#t(ent whi#h were to pro!ie #are& prote#tion an reha'ilitation to negle#te an e!iate "u!eniles. The a#t was re(eial in nature an hen#e was gi!en li'eral #onstru#tion. Resent /ug(ent of the 0ur$ Club &td. v. )egional +irector" 7mployees State #nsurance Corporation66 witnesse li'eral #onstru#tion of ESIC A#t on 'enefi#ial grouns. 18 B. Shah !. 6resiing offi#er& La'our #ourt& AIR +125 SC +9.
19 Union of Inia !. 6ra'ha%aran 0i"a$ u(ar& =9335>1 SCC ;92. 20 %a&cto's, Benefcient Statutes and Benefcient Rules o Construction, st 12, 2015, a*aila+le at htt'--&&&.la&cto's.co/-acade/i!e-+enecent#stattes#+enecent#rles#o# constrction-. 6ratap Singh ! State of /har%han =933;> : SCC ;;+
21 #d. 22 The Bangalore Turf Clu' Lt. 0s. Regional Dire#tor& E(plo$ees State Insuran#e Corporation Ci!il Appeal Nos. 94+@ of 933:& 41 an +;2;G933@& :49+& :499 an @9+9G93+9
0.LI8ITATIONS OF BENEFICIAL LEISLATIONS It shoul 'e %ept in (in that& ai( 'ehin li'eral #onstru#tion of statutes is to %eep law (o!ing with the e!elop(ent of so#iet$ an to satisf$ the progressi!e nees of people. But as e!er$thing in this worl ha!e li(itations& #anon of li'eral interpretation shoul not 'e use where the (eaning of the pro!ision is #lear& pre#ise an una('iguous. In Sundarambal v. overnment o$ oa68 appellant e(ane Supre(e Court to e#lare a s#hool tea#her wor%(an uner Inustrial Dispute A#t. Court #onsiering the efinition of 7wor%(an, uner se#tion 9 => of ID A#t hel that tea#her oes not #o(es uner an$ of the #ategor$ =s%ille or uns%ille (anual& super!isor$& te#hni#al or #leri#al wor%>& hen#e #annot 'e e#lare as 7wor%(an, uner Inustrial Dispute A#t. In this #ase #ourt i not go 'e$on the literal s#ope of pro!ision as it was #lear an una('iguous. It shoul 'e applie without rerafting or oing !iolen#e to the pro!ision. hile interpreting one shoul not 'e guie solel$ '$ s$(path$.94 In Secretary State o$ *arnataka v 9madevi6/ " Supre(e Court hel that those e(plo$e '$ state or its instru(entalities& te(poraril$ or on #ontra#tual 'asis on ail$ wages o not ha!e right o regulari)ation onl$ 'e#ause the$ ha!e ser!e for (an$ $ears. Though the 'enefi#ial statutes shoul re#ei!e li'eral interpretation& I shoul also 'e %ept in (in that the 'enefit 'e gi!en to onl$ those for whi#h it was (eant to an the s#ope shoul not 'e e-tene.9@ If the statute #onfers the 'enefit onl$ upon the fulfill(ent of #ertain #onitions& then non?#o(plian#e with those #onitions woul nullif$ the 'enefit.92 Legislations su#h as the Control of Rent an E!i#tion A#ts are for the prote#tion of tenant fro( un"ust e!i#tion an
23 Sunara('al !. o!ern(ent of oa& AIR +155 SC +233 24 8aruti U$og Lt. ! Re(lap& =933;> 9 SCC @:5 25 Se#retar$ State of arnata%a ! U(ae!i& =933@> 4 SCC + 26
shoul 'e #onstrue li'erall$ in #ase of ou't& 'ut this A#t also #reates restri#tion that 'enefit uner this #an 'e en"o$e if the statutor$ pro!isions uner this are stri#tl$ #o(plie with.95
0I.CONCLUSION hile #onstruing the statutes& the interpretation whi#h a!an#e the o'"e#t of the law ena#te shoul 'e resorte to. Ai( 'ehin li'eral #onstru#tion has alwa$s 'een to safeguar the interest of the people '$ safeguaring their so#io?e#ono(i# rights. elfare statutes shoul 'e gi!en wiest possi'le interpretation an not to narrow it own so as to efeat the ulterior intention of the legislature. ith the e!olution of the so#ietal li!ing stanars an hen#e their right& prin#iple of stri#t an narrow "a#%et legislation is no (ore followe. Li'eral #onstru#tion of statutes has (ae the "usti#e s$ste( (ore progressi!e.
0II.BOBLIORA6 9. 8 N Rao& A(ita Dhana& N S Binra,s Interpretation of Statues :49 =9332> 28 Nasir Uin ! Sita Ra(& =933:> 9 SCC ;22
STATUTES +. 9. :. 4. ;. @. 2. 5.
Inustrial Disputes a#t +142 Usurious Loans A#t& +1+5 8aras
INTERNET RESOURCES +. Law$ers Clu' Inia& Interpretation of Statutes& a!aila'le at httpGGwww.law$ers#lu'inia.#o(Garti#lesGInterpretation?of?Statute?;4:3.asp 9. %a&cto's, enecient "tattes and enecient Rles o onstrction, a*aila+le at htt'--&&&.la&cto's.co/-acade/i!e-+enecent#stattes#+enecent#rles#o# constrction-.
or%ing papers +.
A%riti Shashni& %ene$icial #nterpretation in el$are &egislation: Study o$ udicial +ecisions in #ndia =SSRN& 93+:>
