Module VIII – Interpretation of Remedial and Penal

Statutes

Remedial Statues

Remedial laws or remedial statutes, aim to rectify defects in existing laws or legal
procedures. They do not create new rights or obligations but focus on procedural aspects and
the mechanics of legal processes. These laws are designed to provide remedies for legal
issues, address deficiencies, and enhance the administration of justice. Remedial statutes
primarily deal with procedural matters, including court procedures, jurisdiction, pleading
requirements, and the enforcement of rights. Their fundamental purpose is to ensure that
justice is served by addressing procedural or technical shortcomings within the legal system.

Penal Statutes

Penal statutes are laws that define crimes and prescribe the punishments for those crimes.
These statutes outline the offenses that are considered crimes, specify the elements that must
be present for an act to be deemed as criminal, and set forth the penalties that can be imposed
upon conviction. The term “penal” is derived from the Latin word “peona,” which means
punishment.

Penal statues are typically part of a legal code or criminal law system and are enacted by
legislative bodies. They play a crucial role in maintaining order and justice within a society
by establishing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and providing consequences for
violations of those boundaries.

Distinction

Remedial Statutes Penal Statues

Deals with wrongs against an individual
Deals with those matters affecting the
individual only
Provides remedy for infringement of private
civil rights of an individual
Deals with such wrongful acts for which
remedy is civil action
Remedy for wrongful acts in the form of
damages or compensation to the aggrieved
party but the wrongdoer is not held liable
for any penalty
Duty is fixed by party
The injured party acts
Deals with the wrongs against the State
Deals with those matters which affect the
whole community
Provides punishment for public wrong
Deals with such wrongful acts, the
commission of which attracts punitive
(penal) action
Penalty such as imprisonment, fine,
forfeiture etc., is imposed on the offender
Duty is fixed by the State
State acts and State is a prosecuting agency

Liberal Construction of Remedial Statutes

Remedial statutes, enacted to address defects or in response to persistent public policy
demands, are subject to a liberal interpretation by the courts. When interpreting such statutes,
the courts should give them the broadest possible scope within the confines of their language.
In cases like the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, aimed at social benefit, the provisions
should be construed to fulfill the legislative purpose without distorting their language. If a
remedial statute allows for multiple interpretations, the one aligning with the Act's policy and
benefiting those it aims to protect should be preferred. Exceptions in beneficial legislation
should be narrowly construed to avoid unduly limiting its operation. Laws designed to benefit
a specific class may inadvertently benefit others to some extent. In cases where statutes
prohibit contracts or transactions to protect one class from potential oppression, parties are
not considered equally at fault, allowing individuals from the oppressed class to seek redress
even if they were involved in a prohibited transaction.

In Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd Qasim, it was held that effect of a beneficial legislation is
not construed to be defeated by a subsequent legislation except through a clear provision.
Therefore, the rights of the minor children, irrespective of their religion, to get maintenance
from their parents as provided in S/127 of the CrPC 1973 was construed not to have been
taken away in respect of Muslims by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce)
Act 1986. S/3(b) of the Act enables a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance for the
minor children up to the age of two years only from her former husband. It has been held that
the right of children to claim maintenance under S/125 CrPC is independent of the right of
divorced mother to claim maintenance for the infant children and the former is not affected
by the Muslim Women Act, 1986.

In the case of Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration, the SC held that the beneficent provisions
of S/428, CrPC directing set-off of the period of pre-conviction detention against the ‘term’
of imprisonment is applicable even to cases where the sentence is imprisonment for life and
that such a sentence is also imprisonment ‘for a term’ within the section.

Strict Construction of Penal Statues

The principle of strict construction in interpreting statutes related to offenses or penalties is

no longer universally applied but is limited to situations where multiple reasonable
constructions are available. Initially developed to alleviate harsh sentences for minor
offenses, this principle has diminished in necessity, but distinctions persist in interpreting
penal statutes compared to others. Lord Esher's rule emphasizes adopting the more lenient
interpretation when two reasonable constructions exist. Interpretation of penal provisions
must align with fundamental rights principles, and any provision imposing adverse
consequences without offering a remedy for the accused to disprove evidence inconsistent
with innocence is inconsistent with Article 21. In cases of unclear language in penal statutes,
the principle against double penalization is applied, emphasizing a balanced interpretation
that upholds the law while protecting the accused's human rights, such as the right to privacy.
The burden of proving exceptions to a statutory offense lies with the accused, and the
construction of defenses depends on the specific statute. The following are some of the
propositions important in relation to strict construction of penal statutes –

a) if the scope of prohibitory words covers only some class of persons or some well-defined
activity, their scope cannot be extended to cover more on consideration of policy or object if
the statute.
b) prohibitory words can be widely construed only if indicated in the statute. On the other
hand, if after full consideration no indication is found the benefit of construction will be
given to the subject.

c) if the prohibitory words in their own signification bear wider meaning which also fits in
with the object or policy of the statute.

In the case of JK (Bombay) Ltd v. Bharti Matha Mishra, it was held that the expression
‘officer or employee of a company’ applies not only to the existing officer or employee but
also includes past officers or employees where such an officer or employee either –

i) wrongfully obtains possession of any property, or

ii) wrongfully withholds the same after the termination of his employment.

The expression would also include the ‘legal heirs or representatives.’ It was held by the
court that the penal statutes should not be so liberally construed with the aid of presumptions,
assumptions and implications as to rope in for the purposed of prosecution such persons
against whom the prosecution is not intended by the statute and initiation of prosecution
would be violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution and against public policy.