Liberal Construction of Statutes

February 10, 2019 | Author: Abhishek Verma | Category: Liberalism, Welfare, Statutory Interpretation, Supreme Court Of India, Eviction
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

The article analyses different supreme cases to explain how Indian courts have given liberal interpretation to the benef...

Description

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 intene while writing the  pro!isions. For this "ui#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 leaing #ases "ui#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 wier (eaning. Co((on law re#ogni)es two #anons of li'eral interpretation* one is the li'eral #onstru#tion of re(eial laws an the other that all laws shoul 'e li'erall$ #onstrue. Interpretation of pro#eural ena#t(ent shoul 'e li'eral for the enfor#e(ent of su'stanti!e rights. All the pro!isions that pro!ie for the prote#tion of  funa(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!oie an this prin#iple is 'eing pro(ote '$ (an$ states as the$ are re"e#ting stri#t #onstru#tion. Re(eial or 'enefi#ial statutes are those whi#h in orer to 'ring out so(e so#ial refor( are ire#te to #ure the i((eiate (is#hief #ause to a  parti#ular group of persons to a(eliorate their #onitions.+ Uner 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 #onition 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(eial statues. Different re(eial an welfare statutes are ta%en into #onsieration while arri!ing at the #on#lusion. For that (atter author rea#he the final stage '$ the wa$ of anal$sis of pre#eents set  '$ Supre(e Court of Inia relate to li'eral interpretation of welfare an re(eial ena#t(ents.

1 Central Railwa$ or%shop& /hansi !. 0ishwanath& AIR +123 SC 455.

II.6RINCI6LE OF BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION The 'asi# unerl$ing prin#iple of interpretation of re(eial statues is that the$ shoul 'e interprete li'erall$ '$ gi!ing the wiest possi'le (eaning to the pro!isions. In the #onition 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 orer to satisf$ the intent of the legislature. Rights of the people shoul alwa$s 'e interprete in a wie sense while the e-e(ptions shoul 'e gi!en stri#t interpretation. As RTI is a re(eial statue the a'o!e(entione prin#iple shoul 'e applie while interpreting the sa(e. An infor(ation e(ane '$ the person shoul 'e pro!ie 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#lues in itself the prin#iple of 78a-i(u( is#losure an (ini(u( e-e(ptions,. These are the prin#iples whi#h "ui#iar$ is o'ligate to follow while interpreting RTI.9 The o'"e#ti!e 'ehin the Inustrial Disputes a#t +142 is to enhan#e the wor%ing #onitions of  inustrial la'ors& pro!ie the( with orinar$ a(enities of life an pro(otion of inustrial 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 inustrial 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;. @ SCC 59. 5 Transport Corpn of Inian !. E(plo$ees, State insuran#e #orpn an anor =9333> + SCC 49@.

In Chotilal Sowcar v. awanraj!  " #ourt while interpreting wor 7suit, uner 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$ing usurious interest& it shoul 'e interprete as in#luing referen#e uner s :3 of Lan a#uisition a#t& +514. hile holing that& #ourt relie on pre#een#e that& where the statute '$ #onferring propriet$ rights on tiller of soil tens 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(eial statutes is a!an#e(ent of hu(an rights an relationships& an re(eial interpretation #an onl$ 'e grante if the statute satisfies these o'"e#ti!es.5  hile interpreting re(eial statutes #ourt nee to gi!e the wiest 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(eie an falls within the language of the ena#t(ent.1 It shoul 'e #onstrue in a wa$ that the wors will gi!e the (ost  possi'le re(e$ per(itte '$ the phraseolog$.+3 This prin#iple has 'een freuentl$ use '$ #ourts in e#iing !arious #ases. 8aras ILR : Bo( 499. 10 Law$ers Clu' Inia& #nterpretation o$ Statutes & August ++& 93+;& a!aila'le at httpGGwww.law$ers#lu'inia.#o(Garti#lesGInterpretation?of?Statute?;4:3.asp

11 Nara$anaswa(i Reiar !. 6a(ana'han& AIR +1@@ 8a :14.

If we tal% a'out RTI& it is not wholl$ re(eial 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(eial 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. /ui#iar$ shoul %eep in (in while interpreting RTI that the latent intention of the legislature 'ehin su#h ena#t(ent is to pro!ie re(e$ to the aggrie!e person 'ut not to punish a efaulting offi#er. Another re(eial statute& the Uttar 6raesh De't Ree(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 reu#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 uner S 9=:> of the Uttar 6raesh De't Ree(ption A#t +143& whi#h in#lue 'oth lanlor who a#tuall$  pa$s the lan re!enue as well as lanlor who is assu(e to pa$ lan re!enue. I0.ANALHSIS OF CASES ON LIBERAL INTER6RETATION OF ELFARE LEISLATIONS hile interpreting the welfare legislations li'eral approa#h is to 'e aopte 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 wie interpretation.+: Inustrial Dispute A#t +142 is a prin#iple e-a(ple of welfare statute an #ourt in interpreting wors li%e 7or%(an, an 7Inustr$, uner this a#t has in (an$ #ase laws has aopte li'eral approa#h to satisf$ the o'"e#t of this welfare legislations. These wors are essential in Inustrial Dispute A#t& hen#e nee to 'e #onstrue li'erall$. But these efinitions ha!e 'een interprete ifferentl$ in (an$ #ases. Definition of 7inustr$, 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 Welare Legislation: Study o Judicial Decisions in India 2#3 (""R$, 2013)

in s 9 =">. In +, %anerjee v. P) Mukherjee4 (uni#ipal a#ti!it$ was regare as 7inustr$, espite the fa#t that it is not #onsiere as trae or 'usiness a#ti!it$. So li'eral approa#h was pra#ti#e to  'ring (uni#ipal a#ti!it$ uner the pur!iew of 7inustr$,. Finall$ after flu#tuating s#ope of  7inustr$, efine '$ Supre(e Court was finall$ gi!en an e-pane an li'eral interpretation in lan(ar% "ug(ent of %angalore ater Supply and Sewerage %oard v. A. )ajappa/. Supre(e Court while e#iing the #ase hel that& a statute (eant for the welfare of wor%ers shoul 'e #onstrue li'erall$ an wiel$& so that wor%ers or si(ilar #o((unit$ #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  $acts" unless language leaves no option.3!  or 7wor%(en, is efine in s 9=s> of inustrial Dispute A#t& +142 an this also is a su'"e#t (atter of #ontro!ers$. In ,ational %uilding Construction v. Pritam Singh ill 5   Supre(e #ourt ha to e#ie whether the wor%(en who were is(isse prior to the ate of appli#ation uner s :: C =9> also #o(es uner 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 efenant #ease to 'e wor% (en& hel that the purpose of the pro!ision is to pro!ie 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((eiatel$ pre#eing an in#luing the a$ of her eli!er$ an for siwee%s i((eiatel$ 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 Builing Constru#tion !. 6rita( Singh ill& AIR +129 SC +;21

hel that Suna$s (ust also 'e in#lue as the A#t is ena#te to 'enefit of wo(en wor%er so as to pro!ie wage for her issipate energ$& to nurture her #hil an to preser!e her effi#ien#$.+5 In an another #ase+1 of li'eral interpretation gi!en to a 'enefi#ial statute& Supre(e Court Interprete 7Untowar A##ient, #ontaine in S +9: =#> of Railwa$s A#t& +151 to in#lue 7a##iental falling of a passenger fro( a train #arr$ing passengers,. Supre(e #ourt #onsiering it as a 'enefi#ial legislation hel that in spite of gi!ing it a narrow interpretation whi#h woul onl$ in#lue a##ient when the passenger was tra!eling in the train& it shoul 'e gi!en a li'eral #onstru#tion to in#lue a##ients #ause while 'oaring a train to wien the s#ope of the re(eies that the statute intene to pro!ie. /u!enile /usti#e A#t 9333 is another aition 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 orer to further the o'"e#ti!es of the ena#t(ent whi#h were to pro!ie #are& prote#tion an reha'ilitation to negle#te an e!iate "u!eniles. The a#t was re(eial in nature an hen#e was gi!en li'eral #onstru#tion. Resent /ug(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 grouns. 18 B. Shah !. 6resiing offi#er& La'our #ourt& AIR +125 SC +9.

19 Union of Inia !. 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-+enecent#stattes#+enecent#rles#o# constrction-. 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 LEISLATIONS 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 nees 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(ane Supre(e Court to e#lare a s#hool tea#her wor%(an uner Inustrial Dispute A#t. Court #onsiering the efinition of 7wor%(an, uner se#tion 9 => of ID A#t hel that tea#her oes not #o(es uner an$ of the #ategor$ =s%ille or uns%ille (anual& super!isor$& te#hni#al or #leri#al wor%>& hen#e #annot 'e e#lare as 7wor%(an, uner Inustrial Dispute A#t. In this #ase #ourt i not go 'e$on the literal s#ope of pro!ision as it was #lear an una('iguous. It shoul 'e applie without rerafting or oing !iolen#e to the pro!ision. hile interpreting one shoul not 'e guie 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-tene.9@ If the statute #onfers the 'enefit onl$ upon the fulfill(ent of #ertain #onitions& then non?#o(plian#e with those #onitions 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 Sunara('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(ae!i& =933@> 4 SCC + 26 
View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF