This Project has been submitted

by

Abhishek Verma
ID No: 213058

On Interpretation of Statutes

During the Monsoon Semester

2015-2016

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

I.INTRODUCTION
The purpose of interpreting statutes is to get what the legislature intended while writing the
provisions. For this judiciary take resort to literal interpretation, but sometimes a part of statute
by way of literal interpretation destroys the true purpose of the law. By way of giving that part
liberal interpretation the logical defect can be rectified and the latent intent of the legislature
behind the statue of law can be given effect. In leading cases judiciary has given liberal
interpretation to the statues so as to advance substantial justice. Instead of giving narrow
meaning to the terms of the statues, they are given wider meaning. Common law recognizes two
canons of liberal interpretation; one is the liberal construction of remedial laws and the other that
all laws should be liberally construed. Interpretation of procedural enactment should be liberal
for the enforcement of substantive rights. All the provisions that provide for the protection of
fundamental human rights should be given liberal interpretation. Strict construction of welfare,
social and beneficial statues should be avoided and this principle is being promoted by many
states as they are rejecting strict construction. Remedial or beneficial statutes are those which in
order to bring out some social reform are directed to cure the immediate mischief caused to a
particular group of persons to ameliorate their conditions. 1 Under liberal interpretation public
acts are given more importance than the private acts, thats why in the condition of conflicts
between public and private interests, public interest were to be favored over private interests.
In this project author has explained different aspects of liberal interpretation of remedial statues.
Different remedial and welfare statutes are taken into consideration while arriving at the
conclusion. For that matter author reached the final stage by the way of analysis of precedents set
by Supreme Court of India related to liberal interpretation of welfare and remedial enactments.

1 Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath, AIR 1970 SC 488.

II.PRINCIPLE OF BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION

The basic underlying principle of interpretation of remedial statues is that they should be
interpreted liberally by giving the widest possible meaning to the provisions. In the condition
when the provision is ambiguous and more than one interpretations are possible than the
interpretation which is favorable to a group of people should be chosen in order to satisfy the
intent of the legislature. Rights of the people should always be interpreted in a wide sense while
the exemptions should be given strict interpretation.
As RTI is a remedial statue the abovementioned principle should be applied while interpreting
the same. An information demanded by the person should be provided to him to such an extent
which could satisfy him without breaching his rights. Statements of Objects and Reasons of RTI
act specifically includes in itself the principle of Maximum disclosure and minimum
exemptions. These are the principles which judiciary is obligated to follow while interpreting
RTI.2
The objective behind the Industrial Disputes act 1947 is to enhance the working conditions of
industrial labors, provide them with ordinary amenities of life and promotion of industrial peace.
To further the objective of the statute, it should be interpreted liberally to satisfy the objectives
contemplated in statements of objects and reasons. 3 In Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-op Marketingcum-Processing Service Society ltd4 while dealing with the industrial dispute, court emphasized
on the doctrine of social justice. In case of two interpretation, one which further the objective of
the enactment should be chosen5. However, it should be kept on mind that while giving the
liberal interpretation, language of the statute should not be violated.
2 Jayashree Palande, Reflections on the Reflected 112 (2007)
3 M N Rao, Amita Dhanda, N S Bindras Interpretation of Statues 342 (2007)
4 Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-op Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society ltd, (1999) 6 SCC 82.
5 Transport Corpn of Indian v. Employees State insurance corpn and anor (2000) 1 SCC 426.

In Chotilal Sowcar v. Jawanraj6, court while interpreting word suit under S.2 (1) of Usurious
Loans Act, 1918 took the liberal approach and held that so as to give relief from paying usurious
interest, it should be interpreted as including reference under s 30 of Land acquisition act, 1894.
While holding that, court relied on precedence that, where the statute by conferring propriety
rights on tiller of soil tends to benefit him, the relevant provisions should be interpreted to the
benefit of tiller.7

III.INTERPRETATION OF REMEDIAL STATUTES

The purpose of remedial statutes is advancement of human rights and relationships, and remedial
interpretation can only be granted if the statute satisfies these objectives.8 While interpreting
remedial statutes court need to give 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.9 It should be construed in a way that the words will give the most
possible remedy permitted by the phraseology.10 This principle has been frequently used by
courts in deciding various cases. Madras Hindu Bigamy Preventions and Divorce Act 1949, was
meant to remove some disabilities of Hindu women and confer on them some rights related to
property and maintenance. Despite the fact that it is a remedial statute, the interpretation should
not be so liberal that it get deviated from the objective if the enactment. Thus, where under this
Act, marriage of the women was illegal, she cannot be allowed to demand maintenance from the
person, because she is not legitimate wife under the Act.11

6 Chotilal Sowcar v. Jawanraj, AIR 1966 Mad 32.

7 Khushi Ram v. Jaswant Rai, 68 Punj LR 922.
8 M N Rao, Amita Dhanda, N S Bindras Interpretation of Statues 342 (2007)
9 Sayad Mir Ujmuddin Khan v. Ziaulnisa Begum, (1879) ILR 3 Bom 422.
10 Lawyers Club India, Interpretation of Statutes, August 11, 2015, available at
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Interpretation-of-Statute-5430.asp
11 Narayanaswami Reddiar v. Padmanabhan, AIR 1966 Mad 394.

If we talk about RTI, it is not wholly remedial as some provisions of it are penal in nature also.
As penal statues cannot be interpreted liberally, they need to go through strict interpretation. As
RTI is partly remedial and partly penal it becomes difficult to apply a single canon of
construction, so emphasis should be given to intention of the legislature while interpreting its
provisions. Judiciary should keep in mind while interpreting RTI that the latent intention of the
legislature behind such enactment is to provide remedy to the aggrieved person but not to punish
a defaulting officer.
Another remedial statute, the Uttar Pradesh Debt Redemption Act 1940 should be constructed so
as to promote the object of the legislature which was kept in mind while enacting the statute. It
was held in B Chotey Lal v. Fazul Rahman Khan, wakf estate was entitled to get reductions in
local rate payable on the items of property on which no revenue was collected. This decision was
based on the liberal interpretation of Explanation II of definition of Agriculturist given under S
2(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Debt Redemption Act 1940, which included both landlord who actually
pays the land revenue as well as landlord who is assumed to pay land revenue.
IV.ANALYSIS OF CASES ON LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF WELFARE
LEGISLATIONS
While interpreting the welfare legislations liberal approach is to be adopted and the expression
used in the welfare legislation should be given purposive construction. 12 All the welfare
legislations are for the promoting general welfare and protection of social and economic rights of
the citizens, so they should be given liberal and wide interpretation. 13 Industrial Dispute Act 1947
is a principle example of welfare statute and court in interpreting words like Workman and
Industry under this act has in many case laws has adopted liberal approach to satisfy the object
of this welfare legislations.
These words are essential in Industrial Dispute Act, hence need to be construed liberally. But
these definitions have been interpreted differently in many cases. Definition of industry is given

12 Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Mah LJ 593
13 Akriti Shashni, Beneficial Interpretation in Welfare Legislation: Study of Judicial Decisions
in India 2-3 (SSRN, 2013)

in s 2 (j). In DN Banerjee v. PR Mukherjee14 municipal activity was regarded as industry despite

the fact that it is not considered as trade or business activity. So liberal approach was practiced to
bring municipal activity under the purview of industry. Finally after fluctuating scope of
industry defined by Supreme Court was finally given an expanded and liberal interpretation in
landmark judgment of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa 15. Supreme
Court while deciding the case held that, a statute meant for the welfare of workers should be
construed liberally and widely, so that workers or similar community can derive maximum
benefit out of it. Justice K. Iyer observed:
The literal latitude of the words in the definition cannot be allowed grotesquely inflationary
play, but must be read down to accord with the broad industrial sense of the nations economic
community of which labor is an integral part. To bend beyond credible limits is to break with
facts, unless language leaves no option.16
Word workmen is defined in s 2(s) of industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and this also is a subject
matter of controversy. In National Building Construction v. Pritam Singh Gill 17 Supreme court
had to decide whether the workmen who were dismissed prior to the date of application under s
33 C (2) also comes under the purview of workmen as defined in s 2 (s). Supreme Court
rejecting the argument that after dismissal defendant ceased to be workmen, held that the purpose
of the provision is to provide aggrieved workmen with an alternative court, hence should be
constructed liberally to suppress the mischief. Thus, Supreme Court used beneficial construction
to safeguard the interest of the workmen.
Maternity Benefit Act 1961 is another welfare legislation s 5 of which makes employer liable to
pay maternity benefit to a women employee at the rate of actual daily wage for the period of
her actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and for six
weeks immediately following that day. Court giving beneficial construction to s 5 of this Act,
14 DN Banerjee v. PR Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 58
15 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa , AIR 1978 SC 548
16 Id.
17 National Building Construction v. Pritam Singh Gill, AIR 1972 SC 1579

held that Sundays must also be included as the Act is enacted to benefit of women worker so as
to provide wage for her dissipated energy, to nurture her child and to preserve her efficiency.18
In an another case19 of liberal interpretation given to a beneficial statute, Supreme Court
Interpreted Untoward Accident contained in S 123 (c) of Railways Act, 1989 to include
accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Supreme court considering it
as a beneficial legislation held that in spite of giving it a narrow interpretation which would only
include accident when the passenger was traveling in the train, it should be given a liberal
construction to include accidents caused while boarding a train to widen the scope of the
remedies that the statute intended to provide.
Juvenile Justice Act 2000 is another addition to the list of beneficial legislations. The earlier Act
of 1986 defined juvenile a person not having attained sixteen year of age in case of a boy, and a
person not having attained age of eighteen years in case of a girl. Act of 2000 replaced it defined
juvenile as a person who has not completed age of eighteen years of age. 20 When the issue came
before the court in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand21 court construed it liberally in
order to further the objectives of the enactment which were to provide care, protection and
rehabilitation to neglected and deviated juveniles. The act was remedial in nature and hence was
given liberal construction.
Resent Judgment of the Turf Club Ltd. v. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance
Corporation22 witnessed liberal construction of ESIC Act on beneficial grounds.
18 B. Shah v. Presiding officer, Labour court, AIR 1978 SC 12.

19 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar, (2008)9 SCC 527.

20 Lawctopus, Beneficient Statutes and Beneficient Rules of Construction, August 12, 2015,
available at http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/beneficent-statutes-beneficent-rules-ofconstruction/. Pratap Singh v State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551

21 Id.
22 The Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Civil
Appeal Nos. 2416 of 2003, 49 and 1575/2006, 3421, 3422 and 6212/2012

V.LIMITATIONS OF BENEFICIAL LEGISLATIONS

It should be kept in mind that, aim behind liberal construction of statutes is to keep law moving
with the development of society and to satisfy the progressive needs of people. But as everything
in this world have limitations, canon of liberal interpretation should not be used where the
meaning of the provision is clear, precise and unambiguous. In Sundarambal v. Government of
Goa23 appellant demanded Supreme Court to declare a school teacher workman under Industrial
Dispute Act. Court considering the definition of workman under section 2 (d) of ID Act held
that teacher does not comes under any of the category (skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work), hence cannot be declared as workman under Industrial Dispute Act.
In this case court did not go beyond the literal scope of provision as it was clear and
unambiguous.
It should be applied without redrafting or doing violence to the provision. While interpreting
one should not be guided solely by sympathy.24 In Secretary State of Karnataka v Umadevi25,
Supreme Court held that those employed by state or its instrumentalities, temporarily or on
contractual basis on daily wages do not have right o regularization only because they have served
for many years.
Though the beneficial statutes should receive liberal interpretation, I should also be kept in mind
that the benefit be given to only those for which it was meant to and the scope should not be
extended.26 If the statute confers the benefit only upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, then
non-compliance with those conditions would nullify the benefit.27 Legislations such as the
Control of Rent and Eviction Acts are for the protection of tenant from unjust eviction and
23 Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, AIR 1988 SC 1700
24 Maruti Udyog Ltd. v Remlap, (2005) 2 SCC 638
25 Secretary State of Karnataka v Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
26 Har Sharan Varma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985b SC 378.
27 Nor Hussain v. Financial Commr, AIR 1995 J&K 102.

should be construed liberally in case of doubt, but this Act also creates restriction that benefit
under this can be enjoyed if the statutory provisions under this are strictly complied with.28

VI.CONCLUSION
While construing the statutes, the interpretation which advance the object of the law enacted
should be resorted to. Aim behind liberal construction has always been to safeguard the interest
of the people by safeguarding their socio-economic rights. Welfare statutes should be given
widest possible interpretation and not to narrow it down so as to defeat the ulterior intention of
the legislature. With the evolution of the societal living standards and hence their right, principle
of strict and narrow jacket legislation is no more followed. Liberal construction of statutes has
made the justice system more progressive.

VII.BOBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1. Jayashree Palande, Reflections on the Reflected 112 (2007)
2. M N Rao, Amita Dhanda, N S Bindras Interpretation of Statues 342 (2007)
28 Nasir Uddin v Sita Ram, (2003) 2 SCC 577

STATUTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Industrial Disputes act 1947

Usurious Loans Act, 1918
Madras Hindu Bigamy Preventions and Divorce Act 1949
Uttar Pradesh Debt Redemption Act 1940
Maternity Benefit Act 1961
Railways Act, 1989
Juvenile Justice Act 2000
Employees State Insurance Corporation Act

INTERNET RESOURCES
1. Lawyers Club India, Interpretation of Statutes, available at
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Interpretation-of-Statute-5430.asp

2. Lawctopus, Beneficient Statutes and Beneficient Rules of Construction, available at

http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/beneficent-statutes-beneficent-rules-ofconstruction/.

Working papers
1.

Akriti Shashni, Beneficial Interpretation in Welfare Legislation: Study of Judicial Decisions in India
(SSRN, 2013)