Beneficial construction

The construction of a statute must not so

strain the words so as include cases plainly
omitted from the natural meaning of the language Where the usual meaning of the words does
not convey the object or intention of the legislature, a more extended meaning may be attributed
to them. If in a legislation, the general object of which is to benefit a particular class of persons,
any provision is ambiguous so that it is capable of two meanings, one of which would preserve
the benefit and another would take it away, the meanings which preserves it should be
adopted.1Ordinarily, the rule of beneficent construction has been applied while construing
welfare legislations or provisions relating to weaker and stronger contracting parties.2 A statute
must be interpreted having regard to the Constitutional provisions as also human rights.3
Beneficent construction means an interpretation to promote public good and prevent misuse of
power. An interpretation which promotes justice and equity should be preferred. Although
hardship is not a ground for striking down legislation, but wherever possible, statute should be
interpreted to avoid possible hardship.4 Beneficial provisions are added for general betterment in
social interest. Courts should adopt a constructive approach so as not to exclude such provision.5
Rather the court should adopt such construction which advances the policy of the legislation to
extend the benefit rather than one which curtails the benefit.6 Beneficial statutes should not be
construed too restrictively.7 In case of doubt or two possible views the beneficial legislation is to
be interpreted in favour of beneficiaries.8
Whenever two enactments in the same area are overlapping each other then the courts should be
cautious in interpreting them. Interpretation of such provisions should not exceed the limit
provided by the statute However, the extent of exclusion is really a question of construction of
each particular statute and the general principles applicable are subordinate to the actual word
used by legislature. If two Acts can be read harmoniously without doingviolation to the words used
therein, then there is no prohibition doing so. If the statute is silent and there is no specific prohibition
then the statute should be interpreted which advances the cause of justice9
1
2

Mahadeo Lai v Admn General ofW Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936

shyam Sunder v Ram Kumar AIR 2001 SC 2472, (2001) 8 SCC 24.

Karnataka State Financial Corporation v N NarsimaJmiah (2008) 5 SCC 176

Per Sinha J, M Subba Reddy v APSRTC AIR 2004 SC 3517, (2004) 6 SCC 729,2004 SCC (LAS) 887, (2004) 3 SLR 583,2004) 102 FLR 235,
(2004) 2 LLN 829; Even the beneficial and benevolent nature of the statute cannot go against the technical objection in entertaining the plea that
the evidence regarding age is not credible or not trustworthy or an afterthought, Probation of Offenders Act 1958, Sudesh Kumar v State of
Uttrakhand (2008) 3 SCC 111.
4

Gauri Shankar Gaur v State of UP (1994) 1 SCC 92, p 124,1993 All LJ1207
Union of India v Pradeep Kumari AIR 1995 SC 2259, (1995) 2 SCC 736
7 Amirtham Kudumban v Samam Kudumban AIR 1991 SC 1256, (1991) 3 SCC 20, p 26, (1991) | MLJ 3 (SC).
6

SM niljkar v Telecom District Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27, 2003 SCC (L&S) 380, (2003) 3 SLR 20, (2003) 2 MP LJ 529,
(2003) 3 Mah LJ 9; the rule is relevant when two views are possible, it is not applicable when the principles are clear and no
onger res integra, Manipal Academy of Higher Education v PF Commissioner (2006) ^ SCC 428.
9 Stateof Goa vWestern Builders (2006) 6 SCC 239.

While construing a statute, sympathy has no role to beneficial statute may receive liberal
construction but the same cannot be extended beyond the statutory scheme. It was held that the
Supreme Court cannot interpret provisions of the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act 1980 ignoring the binding decisions of the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court only by way of sympathy to the workmen concerned10
In the words of Ramaswamy, J:
The purpose of interpretation is to sustain the law. The court must interpret the words or
the language of the statute to promote public good and to interdict misuse of power.
Criminal law is primarily concerned with social protection and prescribes rules of
behaviour to be observed by all. Law punishes deviance, transgression, violation or
omission. Liberty of the individual and security and order in the society or public order are
delicate and yet paramount considerations. Undue emphasis on either would impede
harmony and hamper public good as well as disturb social weal and peace. To keep it well
balanced must be the prime duty of the Judiciary.11
if a beneficial provision is added in a statute it shall not be excluded while construing the
statute. Justice Sahai said in a case, it would be unjust to exclude operation of the beneficient
provision added for general betterment in social interest, by resorting to rule of construction.
The courts are obliged to adopt a constructive approach while construing such provisions.
beneficial legislation

be given widest possible interpretation' 12 But that which is not provided in a statute should
not be read into it only because it a beneficent legislation- Liberal interpretation does not mean
benefit can be given contrary to the provisions of the Act or in Ration of statutory provisions.
Where beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein,
the court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope
of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to not covered by it
While interpreting a procedural statute, such construction should preferred as promotes
justice and prevents miscarriage. Rules of procedure are a handmaid to justice and not its
mistress. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or
stringent, but the fact remains that the objective of -inscribing procedure is to advance the
cause of justice.72 Hence, where a strict construction would defeat justice, a liberal
10

MarutiUdyog Ltd vRem Lai (2005) 2 SCC 638; beneficient legislation should not he construed ki such a manner as to include within
its
ambit a benefit not contemplated by legislature, Deddappa vNationalInsuranceCo Ltd (2008) 2 SCC
11 Adam Baboiol Desm vStoleof Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272,1992 SCC (Cri) 870.
12 (2005) 6 SCC 344; Rani Kusum v Kanchan Devi (2005) 6 SCC 705.
2 tehsh v Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480.

75 Ibid.

n 881 Ull fib8*17 Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369. v BG Shivananjappa (2005) 4 SCC 468.

construction is to be adopted.73 Procedure relating to participation of a party in any

proceedings in an adversarial system should be 50 construed that ordinarily no party is denied
the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation/ It has been held that
unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, provisions of Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a
manner which would leave the court helpless in meeting extraordinary situations for ends of
justice.75 The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge's conscience and points
an angry interrogation at the law-reformer./6 Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr
PQ has been held to be a measure of social legislation and therefore, has to be construed
liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children