Prof. (Dr.) S. P.

Srivastava
Department of Law and Governance
CUSB Gaya
 The object of every legislation is to advance
public welfare. Justice and reason constituted
the great general legislative intent in every
piece of legislation. (Budhan v. Nabi Bux, AIR
1970 SC 1980).
 If one word is ambiguous and is capable of
more than two reasonable meaning, courts
are duty bound to adopt the construction
which should suppress the mischief and
advance the remedy.
 Beneficial construction is an interpretation to
secure remedy to the victim or the person
who is likely to unjustly denied of relief by
literal reading of the words in narrows sense.
 Under BC the court should attempt to be
generous towards the persons on whom the
benefit should be conferred. Providing widest
possible meaning to the provision is known
as BC.
 There should not be any narrow
interpretation of reformative or remedial
legislation.
 A Beneficial or remedial legislation is a
statute which seeks to confer benefit on
individual or class of persons by relieving
them of onerous obligations or which tend to
protect persons against oppressive Act from
individuals with whom they stood in certain
relations.
1. Beneficent Construction involves giving the
widest meaning possible to the statutes.
When two or more possible ways of
interpreting a section or word, exist, the
meaning which gives relief and protect the
benefits which are purported to be given by
the legislature should be chosen.
2. A beneficial statute has tobe construed in its
correct perspective so as to fructify the
legislative intent. (Harsharan Verma v. State
of U. P. , AIR 1985 SC 378).
3. If the provision of the beneficial statutes
envisages the conferment of benefit limited in
period of time and subject to the fulfillment
of certain conditions, their non compliance
will have the effect of nullifying the benefits.
(Noor Hussain Anr. V. Financial
Commissioner, AIR 1955 J&K 102).
4. The rule of BC can only be resorted to
without doing any violence to the language of
the statute.
5. The liberal construction can only flow from
the language of the Act and there cannot be
placing of unnatural interpretation of the
wors contained in the enactment.
6. 6. When natural construction leads to a
general hardship or injustice against the aim
of the Act, that general construction may be
departed from. However, the interpretation
need to be confined to text and context.
(Researve Bank of Inia v. Peerless General
Finance and Investment co., AIR 1987 SC
 Interpretation of the labour legislation should
be done with more concern, with the colour,
the context and content of the statute.
 Social benefit oriented legislation should be
broadly interpreted.
 Socio economic policy should take into the
concern of the enactment while interpreting
the provision.
 In construction of penal statutes if two
possible and reasonble meaning could be put
upon the courts must lean towards that
construction which exmpt the subject from
penalty rather than the one which imposes
penalty. (Tola Ram v. state of Bombay, AIR
1954 SC 496).
 If two views are possible in taxing statute the
view which is favourable to assessee must be
accepted. (CIT v. Trans Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1970
2SCC 192).
 Procedural laws should not be used as traps
to catch litigants unaware, it should
construed so as to advance the cause of
justice. ( Munni Devi v. Hem Prakash, 1981All
Civil Journal 25).
 The Courts must be vigilant to ensure that
benefits conferred by welfare legislation must
not be defeated by subtle devices.
 Beneficial legislation should not be construed
such that it brings within its ambit a benefit
which was not contemplated by legislature. (
Dedappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2008) 2 SCC 595).
 It can only be applied without rewriting or
violence to the enactment. Sympathy cannot
be sole principle guiding interpretation. (
Maruti Udyog Case)
1. B.Shah v. Presiding officer, Labour Court,
Regarding Construction of S. 5 of the Maternity
Benefit Act, 1961.
2.Spring Meadows Hospital v,. Harjol Ahluwalia,
JT 1998 (2) SC 620. Consumer Protection
Act.
3. Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar,
(2008)9SCCC527. S. 123 Railways Act
interpretation of untoward Accident.
4. Noor Saba Khatoon v. Moh Quasim, AIR
1997 SC 3280. Section 127 Cr.P.C.
5. Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC
418. Section 7(1) of the Punjab Trade
Employees Act, 1940.
6. Baldeo Sahai v. RC Bhasin, AIR 1982 SC1091.
Delhi Rent Control S. 14
7. Sudesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR
2008 SC 1120. section 6 of Probation of
Offenders Act 1958.