Liberal Construction of Statutes
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 $emester 2015'201(
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
I.INTRODUCTION The purpose of interpreting statutes is to get what the legislature intene while writing the pro!isions. For this "ui#iar$ 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;. @ 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 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
View more...
Comments