Similarity Report
PAPER NAME
21bba052_IOS.docx
WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT
2568 Words 13611 Characters
PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE
9 Pages 51.4KB
SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE
Mar 16, 2025 10:44 PM GMT+5:30 Mar 16, 2025 10:44 PM GMT+5:30
15% Overall Similarity
The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
12% Internet database 0% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
5% Submitted Works database
Excluded from Similarity Report
Bibliographic material Quoted material
Cited material Small Matches (Less then 8 words)
Summary
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA, CUTTACK
“DOCTRINE OF BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTIONS”
A PROJECT WORK ON INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
Under the guidance of: Submitted by:
MR. JYOTISHKA GUHA VAISHALI PANCHAL
(21BBA052)
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Principles of Beneficial Construction ............................................................................................. 4
1
Beneficial Construction: A tendency rather than a rule .................................................................. 5
Scope of Beneficial Construction ................................................................................................... 6
Limitations of Beneficial Construction:.......................................................................................... 7
Applicability of Beneficial Construction ........................................................................................ 8
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction
Every law is created with the direct or indirect benefit of its population in mind in a welfare state.
This is due to the fact that lawmakers' goal is usually to make laws that will either address these
issues through new legislation or by amending existing laws the new issues that emerged or adapt
it in accordance with the current societal need in turn. According to interpretation, this process is
appropriately referred to as suppressing the mischief and promoting the solution. The main query
that then emerges is whether the court created all of the laws in a helpful way, and if not, why not?
1
Additionally, the Court is always required to follow the textual interpretation because it is assumed
that the legislative language expresses the aim of the law and that there is no need to don't stop
there. Second, the Court employs any of the following rules: golden, mischievous, or purposeful
of interpretation to determine the legislature's intent. Therefore, the Court must bind in any case.
The advantageous rule of construction and the legislature's aim provide a greater range of align
with the goal by providing a more expansive interpretation. Thus, it wouldn't be incorrect to assert
that such advantageous laws undoubtedly have greater welfare and public interest goals.
The court read the text based on a favorable interpretation or construction. Nevertheless, even in
that case, the court cannot enact laws because it is not a capable authority to carry out this action.
Without a doubt, the statutes are designed to be practical, useful, and appropriate for either a
specific social class or the entire society. Therefore, in general, laws that are either general or
particularly, if they claim to accomplish the positive goal as social welfare laws, then such the
1
purpose of the interpretation of statutes is to accomplish the goal. It can be rightly ascertained
about beneficial legislation that: “Statutes which purport to confer benefit on individuals or a class
of persons, by relieving them of onerous obligations under contracts entered into by them; or which
tend to protect persons from oppressive acts of individuals with whom they stand in certain
relations, are called beneficial legislations.”1
When constructing such statutes, the acknowledged premise is that there shouldn't be any limited
interpretation. The court ought to make an effort to be kind to those who should get benefits. When
a law is generously interpreted to provide the broadest It is referred to as useful construction. An
interpretation is called "beneficial construction to obtain redress for the sufferer who has been
1
N.S. Bindra Interpretation of Statute 797 (Allahabad Law Book Co., Allahabad, 8th edn., 1997).
wrongfully denied relief. A statue's interpretation should be carried out in a manner that advances
the remedy and suppresses evil.
Principles of Beneficial Construction
Generally speaking, when a word can have only one meaning and is not ambiguous, then it must
be given every impact. The extent to which any alternative interpretation can be applied appears
only when a term has the capacity to have several meanings. When if only one of two or more
meanings isn't leading to unreasonable outcomes, then cccording to the maxim - "ut res magis
valeat quam pereat," meaning would prevail, indicating that it is preferable for something to have
an impact rather than vanish, to make it feasible and practical.
8
It is the responsibility of the court to interpret a provision when there are two or more plausible
interpretations particularly advantageous legislation, liberally so as to give it a broad interpretation
instead of a constrictive connotation.2 It follows that this rule will only be applicable when two
meanings are conceivable and in this situation, according to Maxwell's observation. It is said that
the judge's job is to interpret a statute in a way that will suppress the trouble and promote the
solution. Even where the language's typical meaning lies short of the Legislature's entire goal, a
broader interpretation could be ascribed to the words, if they are reasonably susceptible.3
Similar to the Supreme Court's decision in Lalappa Lingappavs. L.V. Textiles Mills4 noted: If
there are two possible interpretations of a regulation, the one that can be used should be the one
that satisfies the Act's policy and is more advantageous to the people for whom it is intended
passed. However, when the wording is clear and concise, attention must be paid to regardless of
5
the repercussions, the statute's language expresses the legislature's objective in that situation. when
the languages are clear. Its repercussions are for the legislature rather than for the courts to take
into account.
1
Furthermore, this rule's concept suggests restrictions that it wouldn't apply in such a way that it
departs from the scope of the Act or Statute, indicating that it shouldn't be interpret such provisions
72
ibid.
3
Sir Peter Benson Maxwell On The Interpretation of Statutes 123 (2007).
4
1981 AIR 852
differently than the legislature intended and should not engage in judicial legislation. Therefore, a
law cannot be read,
• outside the scope of the law, or
• to defy the statutory intent, or
• causing harm to the language, or
• essentially reword the clause, or
• when the legislature's objective is clearly stated in the statute.
4
Beneficial Construction: A tendency rather than a rule
When it comes to suppressing mischief, useful construction is remedial in nature and develops the
2
solution. This regulation has been in effect since the beginning to stop statutes from becoming
useless or failing to accomplish their goals due to incompetence or lack of creativity drafting.
4
Beneficial construction is a tendency rather than a law, according to Maxwell.5 The rationale is
that the beneficial construction concept is founded on the human propensity to be understanding,
equitable, and just. Rather than preventing people from receiving the benefit of the law, the court
typically incorporates as many classes as possible while staying true to the statute's language and
purpose. For instance, in the Alembic case an industrial tribunal granted more paid leaves in
Chemical Works v. Workman6 to the workers than what the Factories Act's Section 79(1)
suggested. This was contested. in the highest court by the appellant. The Supreme Court ruled that
as the Act was welfare legislation for the workers, it had to be designed with their best interests in
mind.
Consequently, if the phrases have two interpretations, the one that benefits the employees needs
to be utilized. When a legislation is meant to help a specific group of people, and if a clause in the
law is ability to mean two different things: one would preserve the benefits, while the other would
53
Harmonious and Beneficial Construction, available at:
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1941/Harmonious-and-Beneficial-Construction..html
6
1961 AIR 647
Otherwise, the interpretation that would maintain the advantages needs to be accepted and adhered
to by the legal system. It should be noted that the court will not provide omissions. The court can
only choose the advantageous interpretation where there are several viable interpretations.
Consequently, where the court must decide between a broader mean that accomplishes the goal of
the better and a more limited meaning, the legislature typically choose the former meaning carrying
beyond the purpose of the law. Likewise, when the legislature's wording falls short a statute could
be given an expanded interpretation in order to accomplish its goal/objective, provided that the
additional meaning is reasonably comprehensible in the language.
1
Scope of Beneficial Construction
Beneficial construction enlarges the scope of interpretation and allows the court to choose for the
wider connotation such that beneficiaries come under its large scope to meet the intention of
legislature. It applies to a large number of statutes which ranges from welfare legislations like
1
Tenancy Act, Rent controls, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, Debts Adjustment Act etc. to
Socio – economic and Labour Legislation like Motor Vehicles Act, Industrial Disputes Act,
Maternity Benefit Act, Contract Labour Act, Unfair Labour Practice Act, Minimum wages Act
etc. This rule's application is notItestricted to just these laws, but additionally even applies to
2
criminal laws statutes, which are interpreted strictly. In Tola Ram v. State of Bombay7, the court
ruled that notwithstanding the construction of criminal statutes If there are two plausible
interpretations, the courts must lean toward the interpretation that spares the subject from
punishment instead of the one that levies a fine.
9
In the Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand8 case, the Honorable Supreme Court took into
consideration the Juvenile Justice (Care Protection and Treatment) Act of 2020 provisions. The
law stipulated because under the new Act, everyone under the age of 18 will be considered a
juvenile. The Court was to ascertain whether, in order to punish an individual who wasn't a minor
1
under the prior Act would be deemed juvenile under the new Act. The Court's decision supported
7
1970 2SCC 192.
8
(2005) 3 SCC 551.
1
in light of the new Act's advantageous objective and said that person for the purpose of the
punishment will be considered juvenile under the new Act. Therefore, these laws make the court
accepts the interpretation that advances, fulfills, and furthers the Act's purpose instead of the one
who would violate the same and make the protection seem fictitious.
Limitations of Beneficial Construction:
It is evident that courts frequently employ the advantageous construction when reading the helpful
statutes in a broader sense, but to what degree? The court system is never regarded as a legislative
body and the sole entity with the right to make legislators are laws. Legislators' laws are assumed
to be legitimate, and they are assumed that they would not use extraneous words or fewer words
1
than necessary while creating a law. Thus, as previously mentioned, liberal construction must
originate from the language employed. This rule equally applies even in Beneficial Construction
as well. It is not possible to interpret a welfare law's provisions in a way that would bring
concerning an outcome that is so obviously at odds with the purpose of the law. The law does not
grant rights other than those established by a specific law may be removed during procedures under
that law without giving people who want to be heard a chance to do so. However, if the law states
that a certain group of people will be the only ones heard, then naturally, no other heard.9
Second, as was already mentioned, failure to adhere to specific requirements is meant to do in the
law would be voiding the impact, with the exception of specific situations, such as disobedience.
1
With the limitation act, in any of these situations, merely having pity is not a guideline for
interpretation. In Western India Plywood Ltd. v. P. Ashokan10 the interpretation of a clause
pertaining to the 1948 Employees' State Insurance Act states that "...any other urrently enacted
1
legislation or any other law pertaining to an occupational injury will not be accessible to an insured
individual or his defendants. Thus, the Court determined that although it is a legislation that is
1
advantageous, but the tort law would not provide a remedy form of compensation or damage.
Thirdly, while it is true that statutes that are remedial in nature give the court the right to supplying
9
N.S. Bindra Interpretation of Statute 798 (Allahabad Law Book Co., Allahabad, 8th edn., 1997).
10
AIR 1997 SC 3883.
1
Casus omissus through construction, but that is not provided in situations when the statute's
language is clear and unambiguous, expressing a single, distinct, and reasonable interpretation.
Applicability of Beneficial Construction
Legislators have the power to enact laws, while the court has the authority to decide cases founded
on the ideas of the separation of powers. Because of this, none of them is permitted to perform
each other's tasks, such as lawmakers not performing court duties and not to presume the legislative
work from a legal standpoint. When judicial work is actually inspected when they understand
various legal systems. However, every law is made on the other side. Legislative language and
some mischief can occasionally become clear or have no one meaning even if it was created with
a legislative intent and they haven't planned for this kind of ambiguity to occur. Under such
conditions, as we have already observed that the judiciary must use a variety of techniques to
determine the legislators' intentions and methods of interpretation. One of the secondary rules of
the Beneficial Construction Interpretation is applied in accordance with the legislation and is not
applicable to all statutes. It is previously stated at the outset that all laws are created for the
advantage of Since all current laws are remedial in nature, the court's authority has increased. in
determining whether advantageous construction would apply or if any act is a beneficial statute.
Again, though, the court would not expand the scope beyond what the legislators intended meaning
6
of any contentious terms or expressions. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.
10
Gupta11, the Honourable Supreme Court ruled that building a home qualified as a service under
section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. protection act of 1986, which was subsequently
modified in 1993. "housing construction” was added to the Act as a service in compliance with
this ruling. This can serve as an illustration of both judicial decisions that go beyond the legislator's
impartial. Given that this was also approved by a subsequent Act change, it appears to be
beneficial, but it can also go against the spirit in many other situations.
11
1994 AIR 787
1
At last, the number of remedial statutes is growing, and the usefulness of beneficial construction
is growing, but the Court must undoubtedly stick to its stance in order to preserve the separation
of powers and refrain from changing the goal by going far beyond the legislative purpose or enact
legislation.
Conclusion
These days, the beneficiary statutes go by several names, such as social, welfare, or remedial. laws
that are focused on justice. As the name suggests, beneficial statutes are those intended to give
certain groups of people or the general public rights, benefits, or advantages complete. These laws
are more receptive to some pressing societal needs and therefore possess greater and obvious
1
influence on social vices by working more directly to accomplish social reforms, and such laws
are advantageous.
When there are multiple viable interpretations, the court must interpret a provision generously to
give it a broad meaning rather than a limited one, especially when it comes to beneficial legislation.
Because it is used to stifle evil and further the remedy, beneficial construction is restorative in
nature. To put it another way, it covers a broad spectrum of laws, including labor, socioeconomic,
and welfare laws. To put it another way, when helpful goals are identified or favorable outcomes
are needed, the interpretation shifts toward beneficial construction.
1
It is a well-established rule of interpretation to give a beneficial statute an intentional interpretation
construction, in order to accomplish the legislative goal. Since it is evident that the advantageous
1
structure being a trend rather than merely a rule, and are employed by the court to interpret the
advantageous statutes in broader sense, but it does not allow for judicial legislation. The Court's
casus omissus is not to be provided in situations when the statute's text is straightforward and
devoid of ambiguity and conveys a clear, concise, and logical interpretation. Lastly, the number
of remedial statutes is growing, as is the usefulness of although building is growing, the Court
must undoubtedly stick to its stance should uphold the separation of powers and avoid hiding the
objective of beneficial governance by exceeding the legislative intent or passing legislation.
Similarity Report
15% Overall Similarity
Top sources found in the following databases:
12% Internet database 0% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
5% Submitted Works database
TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.
ijlmh.com
1 11%
Internet
Indian Institute of Management Rohtak on 2024-12-27
2 <1%
Submitted works
The WB National University of Juridical Sciences on 2020-02-28
3 <1%
Submitted works
Symbiosis International University on 2018-08-31
4 <1%
Submitted works
The WB National University of Juridical Sciences on 2021-02-26
5 <1%
Submitted works
National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2019-09-19
6 <1%
Submitted works
Trinity College Dublin on 2016-12-16
7 <1%
Submitted works
peshawarhighcourt.gov.pk
8 <1%
Internet
Sources overview
Similarity Report
lawctopus.com
9 <1%
Internet
National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2021-05-16
10 <1%
Submitted works
Sources overview
