INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES

Interpretation of statutes Project

on

Liberal construction of statutes

SUBMITTED TO – Ms. P.B. Arya

SUBMITTED BY – Charchil Vijay

ROLL NO – 1115

SEMESTER - 8th

SECTION – A

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 1

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

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, that’s why in the condition of conflicts between public and private interests,
public interest were to be favored over private interests.

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.

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

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 2

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

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 Marketing-
cum-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.

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 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

2
Jayashree Palande, Reflections on the Reflected 112 (2007)
3
M N Rao, Amita Dhanda, N S Bindra’s 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.
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 Bindra’s Interpretation of Statues 342 (2007)

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 3

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

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

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

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.
12
Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Mah LJ 593

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 4

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

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 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. Rajappa15. 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 nation’s 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 Gill17 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

13
Akriti Shashni, Beneficial Interpretation in Welfare Legislation: Study of Judicial Decisions in India 2-3 (SSRN,
2013)
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

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 5

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

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, 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. Recent 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-of-construction/.
21
Pratap Singh v State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551
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

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 6

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

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 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

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.
28
Nasir Uddin v Sita Ram, (2003) 2 SCC 577

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 7

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

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.

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 8

 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PROJECT

VII. BOBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

1. Jayashree Palande, Reflections on the Reflected 112 (2007)

2. M N Rao, Amita Dhanda, N S Bindra’s Interpretation of Statues 342 (2007)

STATUTES

1. Industrial Disputes act 1947

2. Usurious Loans Act, 1918
3. Madras Hindu Bigamy Preventions and Divorce Act 1949
4. Uttar Pradesh Debt Redemption Act 1940
5. Maternity Benefit Act 1961
6. Railways Act, 1989
7. Juvenile Justice Act 2000
8. 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-of-construction/.

WORKING PAPERS

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

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES PAGE | 9