Introduction

Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an

enactment by giving the words of the enactment their natural and
ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of
the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret
arbitrarily and therefore there have been certain principles which have
evolved out of the continuous exercise by the Courts. These principles are
sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’. The object of interpretation of
statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature conveyed
expressly or impliedly in the language used. As stated, "by interpretation
or construction is meant, the process by which the courts seek to ascertain
the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in
which it is expressed."

What we speak or write are the means of communication. No problem arises

when the words are of single meaning, but those with plural meanings
require the basic intend of the conveyor to be understood. If two people
conversing with each other, surely whatever be the uncertainty in the
language will be resorted at the same time. Let us suppose we discovered a
letter written by a soldier during World War I, to his wife, there will
definitely be some words inconsistent with the others and will be delivering
more than one meaning. The best way to understand the real meaning is to
have a logical interpretation of his mind and the conditions that affected
his writing of the letter which will deliver the real intend of the writer.
All that we can do is to solve the mystery by our self as the soldier is
not there to make us understand the whole meaning of the letter; the
same is the case with our judiciary as they by their own intellect have to
interpret the statutes made by the legislators. In most circumstances the
language of the statute has a plain, simple and to the point meaning.
Interpretation becomes more important when it comes to uncertain and
repugnant provisions of the statues.

The reason for ambiguity of legislation is the basic nature of language. It

is not always possible to accurately convert the real intend of the
legislation into written words. The versatility of language inevitably means
that there will often be equally good or equally unconvincing arguments for
two competing interpretation. There are at times the provisions having more
than one meaning or the ambiguity in the language. The legislature
becomes functus officio after enacting the statues. The interpreters
cannot go back to the legislature and ask for the exact meaning of the
statute as the legislators would not have assumed such a wide variety of
conditions while making of any particular statute.

Thus it is totally on the Judges to interpret such provisions so that both

are effective. To avoid further ambiguities legislation has provided us with
the primary rules of interpretations. Here only two of the rules will be
discussed and a reasonable comparison shall be drawn out between them.
Harmonious Construction and Beneficial Construction are the two rules to be
discussed as a concept and shall be compared with each other as per
usages of the same and on different heads.

Interpretation And Construction

Interpretation is the method by which true sense or the meaning of the

word is understood. The meaning of an ordinary meaning of an English word
is not a question of law. According to Gray, the process by which a judge
constructs from the words of a statute book, a meaning which he either
believes to be that of the legislature, or which, he proposes to attribute to
it is interpretation. Salmond describes interpretation as the process which
the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the
medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.

Rule of Harmonious Construction

When there is a conflict between two or more statues or two or more parts
of a statute then the rule of harmonious construction needs to be adopted.
The rule follows a very simple premise that every statute has a purpose
and intent as per law and should be read as a whole. The interpretation
consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted. In the
case in which it shall be impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the
court’s decision regarding the provision shall prevail.

The rule of harmonious construction is the thumb rule to interpretation of

any statute. An interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent
whole, should be the aim of the Courts and a construction which avoids
inconsistency or repugnancy between the various sections or parts of the
statute should be adopted. The Courts should avoid “a head on clash”, in the
words of the Apex Court, between the different parts of an enactment
and conflict between the various provisions should be sought to be
harmonized. The normal presumption should be consistency and it should not
be assumed that what is given with one hand by the legislature is sought to
be taken away by the other. The rule of harmonious construction has been
tersely explained by the Supreme Court thus, “When there are, in an
enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they
should be so interpreted, that if possible, effect should be given to both”. A
construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead letter should
be avoided since harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.

Harmonious Construction should be applied to statutory rules and courts

should avoid absurd or unintended results. It should be resorted to making
the provision meaningful in the context. It should be in consonance with the
intention of Rule makers. Rule of Harmonious construction is applicable to
subordinate legislature also.

The Supreme Court laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious

Construction in the landmark case of CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers:

1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting

provisions and they must construe the contradictory provisions so as to
harmonize them.

2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision

contained in another unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to
find a way to reconcile their differences. When it is impossible to
completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the courts
must interpret them in such as way so that effect is given to both the
provisions as much as possible.

3. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one
provision to a useless number or dead is not harmonious construction.

To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it

fruitless.
Cases on Harmonious Construction

1. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore

In this case the Supreme Court applied the rule of harmonious construction
in resolving a conflict between Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the
Constitution and it was held that the right of every religious denomination
or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
[Article 26(b)] is subject to a law made by a State providing for social
welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a
public character to all classes and sections of Hindus [Article 25(2)(b)].

2. Calcutta Gas Company Pvt. Limited v State of West Bengal

The Legislative Assembly of WB passed the Oriental Gas Company Act in

1960. The respondent sought to take over the management of the Gas
Company under this Act. The appellant challenged the validity of this act
by holding that the state Legislative Assembly had no power to pass such
an under Entries 24 and 25 of the State List because the Parliament had
already enacted the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
under Entry 52 of the Central List dealing with industries. It was
observed by the Supreme Court that there are so many subjects in three
lists in the Constitution that there is bound to be some overlapping and it is
the duty of the courts in such situation is to yet to harmonise them, if
possible, so the effect can be given to each of them. Entry 24 of the
State List covers entire Industries in the State. Entry 25 is only limited
to the Gas industry. Therefore Entry 24 covers every industry barring
the Gas Industries because it has been specifically covered under Entry
25. Corresponding to Entry 24 of the State List, there is Entry 52 in
the Union List. Therefore, by harmonious construction it became clear that
gas industry was exclusively covered by Entry 25 of the State List over
which the state has full control. Therefore, the state was fully competent
to make laws in this regard.

3. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP v Radha Krishna

Under section 46 (1) c of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,
1958, criminal prosecution of the respondent partners was sanctioned in this
case by the Commissioner when even after repeated demands the assesse
did not pay the sales tax. The respondent challenged this provision on the
ground that there were two separate provisions under the Act, namely,
section 22 (4 – A) and section 46 (1) c under which two different
procedures were prescribed to realize the amount due but there was no
provision of law which could tell that which provision should be applied in
which case. According to the Supreme Court, the provision prescribed u/s
46 (1) c was more drastic. It was held that by harmonious construction of
these two provisions, the conclusion drawn is that the Commissioner had a
judicial discretion to decide as to which procedure to be followed in which
case. Whenever the Commissioner will fail to act judicially, the court will
have the right to intervene. However, in this case, the Commissioner had
correctly decided that the more drastic procedure under section 46 (1) c
deserved to be followed because of the failure of the assesse firm in
paying sales tax despite the repeated demands by the sales tax officer.

4. Sirsilk Ltd. v Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

An interesting question relating to a conflict between two equally

mandatory provisions, viz., ss 17(1) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, is a good illustration of the importance of the principle that
every effort should be made to give effect to all the provisions of an act
by harmonizing any apparent conflict between two or more of its
provisions. Section 17(1) of the Act requires the government to publish every
award of a Labour Tribunal within thirty days of its receipt and by sub –
section (2) of section 17 the award on its publication becomes final. Section
18(1) of the Act provides that a settlement between employer and
workmen shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. In a case
where a settlement was arrived at after the receipt of the award of a
Labour Tribunal by the Government but before its publication, the question
was whether the Government was still required u/s 17(1) to publish the
award. In construing these two equally mandatory provisions, the Supreme
Court held that the only way to resolve the conflict was to hold that by
the settlement, which becomes effective from the date of signing, the
industrial dispute comes to an end and the award becomes infructuous and
the Government cannot publish it.

Rule of Beneficial Construction

Beneficent construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to the

statutes. When there are two or more possible ways of interpreting a
section or a word, the meaning which gives relief and protects the benefits
which are purported to be given by the legislation, should be chosen. A
beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to
fructify the legislative intent. Although beneficial legislation does receive
liberal interpretation, the courts try to remain within the scheme and not
extend the benefit to those not covered by the scheme. It is also true
that once the provision envisages the conferment of benefit limited in point
of time and subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, their non-
compliance will have the effect of nullifying the benefit. There should be
due stress and emphasis to Directive Principles of State Policy and any
international convention on the subject.

There is no set principle of construction that a beneficial legislation should

always be retrospectively operated although such legislation such legislation
is either expressly or by necessary intendment not made retrospective.
Further, the rule of interpretation can only be resorted to without doing
any violence to the language of the statute. In case of any exception
when the implementation of the beneficent act is restricted the Court
would construe it narrowly so as not to unduly expand the area or scope of
exception. The liberal construction can only flow from the language of the
act and there cannot be placing of unnatural interpretation on the words
contained in the enactment. Also, beneficial construction does not permit
rising of any presumption that protection of widest amplitude must be
deemed to have been conferred on those for whose benefit the legislation
may have been enacted.

Beneficial Construction of statutes have enormously played an important

role in the development and beneficial interpretation of socio – economic
legislations and have always encouraged the Indian legislators to make more
laws in favour of the backward class of people in India.

Beneficial Construction in Socio – Economic legislations

Socio-economic legislation which is aimed at social or economic policy changes,

the interpretation should not be narrow. Justice Krishna Iyer in a case
relating to agrarian reforms observed that “the judiciary is not a mere
umpire but also an active catalyst in the constitutional scheme”.
In the case of Sant Ram v Rajinderlal, the Supreme Court said that
welfare legislation must be interpreted in a third World perspective
favoring the weaker and poor class. It has also been laid down in the case
of labor legislation that courts should not stick to grammatical constructions
but also have regard to ‘teleological purpose and protective intendment of
the legislation. Interpretation of labor legislations should be done by the
courts with more concern with the colour, the context and the content of
the statute rather than its literal import.

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is one of welfare statute which intends to

bring about peace and harmony between management and labour in an
industry and improve the service conditions of industrial workers which in will
turn accelerate productive activity of the country resulting in its
prosperity. As a result the prosperity of the country in turn will help to
improve the conditions of the workmen. Therefore this statute should be
interpreted in such a way that it advances the object and the purpose of
the legislation and gives it a full meaning and effect so that the ultimate
social objective is achieved. The courts while interpreting labour laws have
always stressed on the doctrine of social justice as enshrined in the
Preamble of Constitution.

Beneficial Construction – A tendency rather than a rule

It is said by Maxwell, that Beneficial Construction is a tendency and not

a rule. The reason is that this principle is based on human tendency to be
fair, accommodating, and just. Instead of restricting the people from
getting the benefit of the statute, Court tends to include as many classes
as it can while remaining faithful to the wordings of the statute. For
example, in the case of Alembic Chemical Works v Workman, an industrial
tribunal awarded more number of paid leaves to the workers than what
Section 79(1) of Factories Act recommended. This was challenged by the
appellant. SC held that the enactment being welfare legislation for the
workers, it had to be beneficially constructed in the favor of worker and
thus, if the words are capable of two meanings, the one that gives benefit
to the workers must be used.

When a statute is meant for the benefit of a specific class, and if a word
in the statute is capable of two meanings, one which would preserve the
benefits and one which would not, then the meaning that would preserve
the benefits must be adopted and shall be followed by the court of law.
It is important to note that omissions will not be supplied by the court.
Only when multiple meanings are possible, can the court shall pick the
beneficial one. Thus, where the court has to choose between a wider mean
that carries out the objective of the legislature better and a narrow
meaning, then it usually chooses the former meaning carrying out the
objective of the legislation. Similarly, when the language used by the
legislature fails to achieve the objective of a statute, an extended meaning
could be given to it to achieve that objective, if the language is fairly
susceptible to the extended meaning.

Limitation On The Application Of Beneficial Construction

If on the application of the rule of beneficial construction, the court finds

that it is doing complete justice and delivering a fair judgment then there
is no question of why should not such rule is applied? But there are certain
restrictions which the court has to take care of which at the time of
application have to be adhered to –
1. Where the courts find that by the application of the rule of beneficial
construction, it would be re legislating a provision of statute either by
substituting, adding or altering any provision of the act.

2. Where any word in a statute confers to a single meaning only. Then

the courts should refrain from applying the rule of benevolent construction
to the statute.

3. When there is no ambiguity in a provision of a statute so construed. If

the provision is plain, unambiguous and does not give rise to any doubt, the
rule of beneficial construction cannot be applied.

Conclusion

The conclusion shall be the final analysis of the comparison between the
rule of Harmonious Construction and rule of Beneficial Construction.
Harmonious construction is only applied where there are a conflict between
the meaning coming out of two different sections and the meaning land the
courts in dubious situation of which section to apply? Whereas, the rule of
Beneficial Construction is applied in the cases where any construction may
do any benefit to the society or any group of people and are basically
applied in the socio – economic legislations. Here there is no conflict
between the meanings of any two sections and meanings attributed to
them.

Therefore the rule of Harmonious Construction and Beneficial Construction

both play an important in the interpretation of statutes and are two
important rules of interpretation.