BENEFICIAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Hola from Lawopedia!

Shelly Mishra from Banasthali Vidyapeeth has authored a blog on "Beneficial Rule of Interpretation."

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘interpretation’ has its roots in the Latin word ‘interpretari’ which means to explain, expound, and understand or to translate.

Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding and translating any text or anything in written form. This basically involves an act of discovering the true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute. The main aim of interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words used in the statutes which might not be that clear and to find out the true meaning behind the words.

The interpretation is done when the language of the provision is ambiguous, not clear what the law is made for, or when a provision has two or more meanings, or when two or more views are possible about the provision, or when the meaning of the provision defeats the purpose of the statute. It is needed because drafting a law is a complex task; and the legislature has to keep in mind thousands of scenarios so that the legislation drafted is complete in itself, and the meaning of the statute would be clear and direct.

KINDS OF INTERPRETATIONS

There are various kinds of interpretations which are as follows:

1. Literal Interpretation: It is also known as grammatical interpretation. While doing this kind of interpretation, the judges are not in any way allowed to add or modify the letter of the law. They should strictly follow the language and directly translate its meaning.
2. Functional Interpretation: In this kind of interpretation, the judges deviate from the literal meaning and look elsewhere to decipher the intent behind the law. Functional interpretation is done in four cases, ·When the statute is inconsistent. ·When the statue is incomplete. ·When the language of the statute is ambiguous. ·When there is a logical flaw in the letter of the law.

RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

It has been divided into two parts:

1. Primary rule of interpretation
2. Secondary rule of interpretation

BENEFICIAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION

Beneficial rule of interpretation also known as the rule of beneficial construction which involves the two or more possible ways of interpreting a section or words or rule or guideline which will provide benefit, relief or protect a single class or a classes of people. In this view the Maxwell commented that the beneficial construction is based on the principal of human tendency, instead of restricting people from getting the benefit of the statute, the court tends to include as many classes as it can while being faithful at a time of constructing a statue.

Because when a statue is made for the benefit of the people of a specific class or classes and a word is used in a statue which is representing two different meaning then the meaning which is providing the benefit shall be adopted and should be followed by the court. For example in a case, Alembic Chemical Work v Workmen, an industrial tribunal awarded more number of paid leave to worker than what mentioned in section of 79(1) of factories act recommended. This was challenged by appellant. Supreme Court held that enactment being welfare legislation for the workers, it has to be beneficially constructed in the favor of the workers and thus, if the words are capable of two meaning, the one who gives benefit to the workers should be used.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

1. Hindustan Unilever v Ashok Vishnu Kate: The court stated that when a law is enacted in social welfare, the construction which extends the intended benefit to the people should be made.
2. Noor Saba Khatoon v Mohammad Quasim: The Supreme Court held in the case that a provision for maintenance under 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and maintenance of children under 2 years are independent of each other and no legislation which is passed subsequent to it can affect the provision.
3. Tola Ram v State of Bombay: The court observed “it is a well setteled rule of construction of penal status that if two possible and reasonable construction can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather thst the one which impose a penalty.”
4. Commissioner of Income Tax Punjab v K.B. Trans Co. Pvt Ltd.: The court said “ it is said thst in a taxing act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. However, while construting the provisions of a taxiing statute, if two views are possible the view which is favourable to the assesse must be accepted”
5. R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay: It was held: “… If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self-defeating.”
6. Again Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay, has followed the same principle and observed: “Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions.

CONCLUSION

?A beneficial construction is for the benefit of a people at a large hence it has to be constructed in a correct and perspective way so that it would be fruitful, hence the law which is to be enacted should be with the objective of promoting a social welfare and facing the urgent social demand of the society.