INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

SUBJECT TO

TYPES OF CONSTRUCTIONS, BENEFICIAL,

STRICT AND HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

SUBMITTED TO:

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF PROFESSOR:

RADHIKA RODRIGUES

SUBMITTED BY:

NAME: SHARMA GOLDY BHARAT

CLASS: LLB T.Y. VTH SEMESTER

ROLL NO: 20349

LAST DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10/9/2022

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

SR.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION

2. MEANING AND
DEFINITION
3. SOURCES OF
INTERPRETATION

4. CONSTRUCTION OF
STATUTES

5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
INTERPRETATION AND
CONSTRUCTION

6. TYPES OF
CONSTRUCTIONS

7. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
STRICT AND LIBERAL
CONSTRUCTION OF
PENAL STATUES

8. CONCLUSION

9. WEBLIOGRAPHY &
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page | 2
 CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a
statute. But, in certain cases, more than one meaning may be derived from the same word or
sentence. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret the statute to find out the real intention of the
legislature.

Interpretation is the art of process of discovering and expounding the intended signification of the
language used in a statute i.e., the meaning which the author designed it to convey to others.

‘Interpretation’ is the act of making intelligible what was before not understood, ambiguous, or
not obvious.

One of the most substantial and the principal duty which are vested on the judiciary is the
interpretation of the statutes or law which are in force. When the courts deliver justice in a legal
dispute, they strictly abide with the boundaries framed by the legal frameworks which
encompasses certain laws, statutes, The Constitution and delegated legislations. 

The legal framework of a democratic country like India includes a plethora of legislations and
regulations. The Legislature with the compliance of the procedural Parliamentary rules,
formulates and drafts certain written statutes and legislations. The courts deliver justice in a legal
matter by interpreting the underlying principles in these legislations.

The written laws are substantiated by the courts and justice is administered by the courts through
the pronouncement of verdict over the legal dispute. For the purpose of interpreting statues and to
prevent any wrongful interpretation of the laws, the court should follow certain rules to shape
these laws.

So, one of the most basic rules of interpretation is the Literal rule of Interpretation of statutes
where the court interprets the wordings of the law as it is. However, there may be certain
loopholes which may be found in the law due to which it is not interpret a straight-forward

Page | 3
 understanding of the language of the statutes. It may lead to ambiguity and absurdity if the courts
interpret the natural meaning of the language used in the statute.

CHAPTER 2

2. MEANING AND DEFINITION:

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

SALMOND: According to Salmond it is only in case of enacted law that a process of judicial
interpretation or construction is necessary, it is not necessary in case of customary or case law.

Maxwell's 'Interpretation of Statutes' has defined statute as the will of the legislature. Usually, it
refers to the act that is enacted by the legislature

INTERPRETATION: The term has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’, which means to
explain, expound, understand, or to translate. Interpretation is the process of explaining, expounding
and translating any text or anything in written form. This basically involves an act of discovering the
true meaning of the language which has been used in the statute. Various sources used are only
limited to explore the written text and clarify what exactly has been indicated by the words used in the
written text or the statutes.

STATUE – It refers to all the enacted laws emanating from a sovereign source. It is the function of
legislature to enact law.

Sanjeev coke Mfg. co. v. Bharat coking coal Ltd. AIR (1983) SC 239. In this case it was held that
after the parliament has enacted the act only the court may say what parliament meant to say

CRAISE – he states that interpretation of statutes is within the special province and under the
exclusive control of judicature, a control exercised only in the course of a legal proceeding and
generally only upon examination of the terms of statue itself.

Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the law. This process is commonly adopted

by the courts for determining the exact intention of the legislature. Because the objective of the court
is not only merely to read the law but is also to apply it in a meaningful manner to suit from case to

Page | 4
case. It is also used for ascertaining the actual connotation of any Act or document with the actual
intention of the legislature.

There can be mischief in the statute which is required to be cured, and this can be done by applying
various norms and theories of interpretation which might go against the literal meaning at times. The
purpose behind interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words used in the statutes which might
not be that clear.

Page | 5
 CHAPTER 3

3. SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION

the two sources are (i)statutes of interpretation (ii) cannons of constructions.

Statutes of interpretation – there is general clauses act which is the central act and various states act
as under the federal scheme of dual set of legislative organs the states have their own General clauses
act.

Cannons or principles of construction – these consist of logical rules, principles, doctrines and
methods evolved by English courts through practice of years and which have because of historical
reasons been adopted by Indian courts.

LORD GODDARD – A certain amount of common sense must be applied in construing a statue if

the object of the Act has to be considered. An intelligent application of the rules and solution in each
real difficulty depends upon the individual skill of a judge. By combining knowledge, wisdom,
common sense and experience great judges develop the instinct of finding out just that solution which
best harmonizes the words with the policy or the object behind them.

Page | 6
 CHAPTER 4

1. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

A construction means an addition to the statutes of things that were not in at all, a deflection from
the right sense. According to 15th century chronicle, these constructions, “were subtle and sinister
things, by which the true meaning of statute was impugned and overthrown”. It is the process by
which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of legislature through the medium of authoritative
forms in which it is expressed.

Construction – it is the drawing of conclusions respect to subjects that lie beyond the direct

expression of text from elements known and given in the text. Construction is the means and
interpretation are the end. The courts draw findings after analysing the meaning of the words used
in the text or the statutes. This process is known as legal exposition. There are a certain set of
facts pending before the court and construction is the application of the conclusion of these facts.

The objective is to assist the judicial body in determining the real intention of the legislature. Its
aim is also to ascertain the legal effect of the legal text.

Construction, in strict sense, is the process by which the court assign the meaning to the
ambiguous provision which is beyond the letter of law for the purpose to resolve the

Page | 7
inconsistency. The judges after taking into consideration the factual circumstances before the
court give a particular meaning to the expression or word or phrase in question. Although, such
meaning must be within the ambit of the objective of statute and could not be directly explained
by the statute.
The word interpretation and construction are used interchangeably but there is thin line of
difference between both the concepts.

How does interpretation differ from construction?

Interpretation – it is the art of finding out true sense of any form of words, that is the sense

which their author intended to convey and of enabling others to derive from them the same

idea which their author intended to convey.

Construction – it is the drawing of conclusions respect to subjects that lie beyond the direct

expression of text from elements known and given in the text.

Construction is the means and interpretation is the end.

COOLEY: construction is the process of drawing conclusions respecting subjects that lie
beyond the direct expression of text which are in the spirit through not within the letter of
law.

A Judge usually makes a construction of an unclear term in a document at issue in a case that
involves a dispute as to its legal significance. The Judge examines the circumstances surroundings
the provision, laws, other writings, verbal agreement dealing with the same subject – matter, and
the probable purpose of the unclear phrase in order to conclude the proper meaning of such
words. Once the Judge has done so, the court will enforce the words as construed. However, for
language that is plain and clear, there cannot be a construction.

Page | 8
 CHAPTER 5
2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
INTERPRETATION
In law, interpretation refers to exposing the
true sense of the provisions of the statutes and
to understand the exact meaning of the words
used in any text
Interpretation refers to the linguistic meaning
of the legal text.
In the case where the simple meaning of the
text is to be adopted then the concept of
interpretation is being referred to.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction, on the other hand, refers to
drawing conclusions from the written texts
which are beyond the outright expression of
the legal text.
The purpose of construction is to determine
the legal effect of words and the written text
of the statute.
In the case where the literal meaning of the
legal text results in ambiguity then the
concept of construction is adopted.
Page | 9
 CHAPTER 6

3. TYPES OF CONSTRUCTIONS

1. LIBERAL OR BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION

2. STRICT CONSTRUCTION
3. HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

1. LIBERAL OR BENEFICAL CONSTRUCTION

A beneficial statute is a class of statute which seeks to confer benefit on individuals or class of
persons by relieving them of onerous obligation under contracts entered into by them or which tend to
protect persons against oppressive act from individuals with whom they stand in certain relations. The
established principle in the construction of such statutes is there should not be any narrow
interpretation. The court should attempt to be generous towards the persons on whom benefit should
be conferred. When a statute is interpreted liberally to give the widest possible meaning to it, it is
called beneficent construction. Beneficial construction is an interpretation to secure remedy to the

Page | 10
victim who is unjustly denied of relief. The interpretation of a statue should be done in such a way
that mischief is suppressed and remedy is advanced.
In case of a social benefit-oriented legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the provisions
are construed as broadly as possible. Interpreting a section of the Act, it was held that parents who
hire the services of a hospital and their child for whom the service is hired are both consumers and
can independently claim damage. The clause regarding jurisdiction has been liberally interpreted to
empower the consumer forum to entertain claims irrespective of whether other courts or for a have
jurisdiction to entertain claims unless jurisdiction is expressly barred Further, the liberal interpretation
has been taken in holding that although the forum is a judicial authority, they are not hampered by
section 34 of Arbitration Act and are not obliged to stay proceedings before them because the Act
provides a cheap and speedy remedy to the consumer.
Liberal or beneficial construction means the interpretation should be made liberally with intention to
advance the purpose or object of the statute. Thus, in case of strict interpretation Courts may prefer
the literal rule while for liberal construction courts may prefer golden rule or mischief rule. Generally,
taxing and penal statutes are to be strictly construed while beneficial or benevolent legislation like
ESI, Contract Labour Act or P.F. should be liberally construed. Even in case of taxing statutes,
beneficial provisions should be liberally construed

The interpretation of statutes is restrained to courts of law. Courts have developed a large and
complicated set of rules to guide individuals in construing or interpreting laws. The term “liberal
construction” refers to the ability of the Bench to interpret different factors while determining the
meaning of a word or document. According to this interpretation, the author most likely meant what
the reader believes. The interpretation must be made liberally with the goal of promoting or
discovering the state’s objective. In the event of welfare laws, equivocal terms or ambiguous
language, and hindering statutes, liberal construction is used

Liberal construction in case of beneficial legislation. A legislation which is enacted to protect

public interest (in this case - Consumer Protection Act) cannot be construed in narrow manner so as to
frustrate its objective. The Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit legislation. It should be
construed in favour of customer -

Broad view in case of socio- economic legislation- legislation having socio-economic perspective
ought to be interpreted with widest possible connotation, as otherwise, the intension of legislature
would stand frustrated Liberal construction may also refer to beneficial or benevolent legislation, such
as the Employer’s State Insurance Act,1948 and the Contract Labour Act,1970. This construction is
governed by the golden rule and the mischief rule, which are referred to by judges. The  Consumer
Protection Act, 1986  is a valuable method of law that protects the interests of consumers. It ought to
be interpreted liberally. A provision in legislation offering incentives for boosting growth and

Page | 11
development should be liberally read such that the actual purpose of such encouragement is not
hindered.

The mischief rule is applied when a statute is ambiguous but does not invent imaginary ambiguities.
When the legislation is plain and clear, this criterion does not apply. The mischief rule established an
entirely different approach to the interpretation of statutes. It is also referred to as a functional,
purposeful, logical, and social engineering norm of interpretation. It is a vital tool for legislative
interpretation of statutes, but the intent or goal of the legislation is not always plain or transparent, or
it seems different to various observers. The whole impact is undeniably one of the most flexible
interpretations of statutes.

“The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning,”
according to Viscount Simon L.C.  It is argued that “unless it can be proven that the legal context in
which the words are employed needs a different interpretation, the natural and usual meaning of
words shall not be deviated from”. When interpreting with an exemption clause, the words must be
given a liberal interpretation, with no abuse to the language. It should be noted, however, that illogical
interpretation outcomes should be avoided. Thus, when interpreted liberally, judges refer to the
golden rule and the mischief rule.

illustration – where a statue is made it a felony to break from prison it would not apply to prisoner
who broke out from the prison while it was on fire. Not to recover his liberty but to save his life.

Inapplicability of liberal construction or beneficial rule:

1. When the Court determines that applying the rule of liberal interpretation, would result in
re-legislating a statute provision by substituting, adding, or changing the terms in the
statute. Then this construction does not apply.

2. When a term in law can only have one meaning, the application is not possible. However,
if a term may have more than one meaning, liberal Construction is possible to apply.

3. If the statute’s provision is clear, unambiguous, and without doubt, the applicability of
Liberal construction is not possible.- Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) referenced
with approval in Union of India v. Tata Chemicals, (2014)

4. Beneficent legislation may have to be liberally interpreted, but when a statute does not
allow for more than one interpretation, a literal interpretation must be used — Collector
of Central Excise v. Saurashtra Chemicals, (2007)

Page | 12
 5. The assumption of liberal interpretation of beneficial law applies only when two points of
view are available – Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provision Fund
Commissioner 2008 

Cases:

1. Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, (2010)
In this case, the skilled counsel for the appellant side argued that remedial statutes, as opposed
to punitive statutes, such as welfare, beneficent, or social justice focused legislation, are
preferable to penal statutes. Such welfare statutes should be liberally construed. They must be
interpreted in order to get the remedies contemplated by the legislation. It is well established,
and there is no need for repetition, that labour and welfare statutes must be broadly and
generously construed with appropriate consideration for the directive principles of state
policy. Welfare, beneficent, or social justice-oriented statutes should always be construed
liberally. In this case, this was the judgement.
2. Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance, (2017) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a
beneficial legislation that needs to be liberally construed in order to defend the interests of
consumers. This was the verdict.
3. Secretary v. Suresh, (1999)
The Contract Labour Regulation Act, 1970 is a beneficial piece of legislation that should be
given the broadest possible meaning in terms of the words used. Courts are created for the
benefit of society, and a question presented in the matter of interpreting beneficial legislation
with a liberal construction would not be appropriate, nor would a question have posed in the
matter of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach.
4. Madan Singh v. Union of India, (1999)
In the case, the Court’s obligation is to liberally interpret a provision, particularly one that is
helpful, in order to offer a broader meaning rather than a limited reading that would contradict
practically every goal of the law.

5. Radhyshyam v. Mewalal, (1929)

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Excise Act should be interpreted strictly and
constructed liberally in the public interest

Page | 13
 2. STRICT CONSTRUCTION

Strict construction occurs when ambiguous language is given its exact and technical meaning, and
no other equitable considerations or reasonable implications are made. Strict Construction means each
of the words in Statute should be interpreted by letter and no regard should be had to the spirit beyond
the statute. A statute may in certain aspects be a penal enactment and in certain others a counteractive
one. In respect of those provisions which are approved on the pain of punishment for a crime, the rule
of strict construction in the limited sense may be applied. At any rate, as undue effort to construe such
a provision liberally to encourage the beneficent purpose behind it may be effectively counterbalanced
on deliberation that a breach thereof leads to penal consequences. Salmond defines “interpretation” as
“a process by which the Court seeks the meaning of Legislature through the medium of authoritative
forms in which it expresses”. The manner, in which the courts have been interpreting penal statutes,
has been changing over time. There was a point where it was believed that a penal statute had to be
construed strictly in favor of the accused. With the flux of time tow, contradictory developments have
influenced the interpretation of penal statutes.

A Court of law is bound to proceed upon the assumption that a legislature is an ideal person that does
not make mistakes. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the language actually employed and to
determine the intention of the legislature from such language and where there is no ambiguity about

Page | 14
the language actually employed, neither the recommendation if the Law Commission, nor the aims
and objects set out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons can be brought in aid or can be allowed to
influence the natural grammatical meaning of the statute as enacted by the Parliament. The rule of the
strict interpretation of penal statutes is said to be founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of
individuals and on the plain principle that the power to define a crime and ordain its punishment is
vested in the legislature and not in the judicial department. It is a reasonable expectation that the
legislature will manifest its intention with reasonable clarity in penal statutes.

According to Maxwell the rule of a strict interpretation of penal statutes manifests itself in four ways
—

(1) Express language is necessary for the creation of criminal offences; therefore, no action is to
be deemed criminal unless it is clearly made so by words of the statute concerned. But it is
not necessary that a particular penalty is specified in order that an act or omission may
constitute an offence.

(2) he words setting out the elements of an offence are to be strictly construed. And if there is any
reasonable doubt or ambiguity it will be resolved in favor of the person charged. A reasonable
interpretation which will avoid the penalty must be adopted. If there are two reasonable
constructions the court must give the more lenient one

(3) . The court must always see that the person to be penalized comes fairly and squarely within
the plain words of the enactment.

(4) Punishments can be imposed only if the circumstances of the case fall clearly within the
words of the enactment.

(5) Similarly, statutes dealing with jurisdiction and procedure are, if they relate to the infliction of
penalties, strictly construed.

(6) The rule that all penal statutes must be strictly construed has been explained by Lord Justice
James in a case speaking for the Privy Council thus

Strict construction of a penal statue means that it is to be construed narrowly in favour of the
person proceeded against. This rule implies a preference for the liberty of the subject in case
of ambiguity in the language of the provision. It is a well-founded principle that if the words

Page | 15
 used in a criminal statute are reasonably capable of two constructions, the construction which
is favourable to the accused should be preferred but in constructing the relevant words it is
obviously necessary to have due regard to the context in which they have been used.

. A Court of law is bound to proceed upon the assumption that a legislature is an ideal person that
does not make mistakes

Fiscal statute

Strict rule of interpretation is one of the principles used to interpret fiscal and penal statutes.
According to this rule, plain, clear and direct meaning is given to words which are used in common
parlance by the general public to which such law is applicable. There can be no presumption by court
with respect to particular meaning. Court cannot give particular meaning to a word which is not clear
by making a presumption that particular meaning is the intention of the legislature. Court cannot
under the guise of possible or likely intention of the legislature, give meaning to the words which are
not clear and where contextual meaning cannot be made out.

Taxation statute

is a fiscal statute which imposes the pecuniary burden on the taxpayer. So, such statutes are construed
strictly. Plain, clear and direct grammatical meaning is given. Where there are two possible outcomes
then that interpretation is given which is in favour of assesse.

In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements (2005) 1 SCC 368 = 178 ELT 55 = 139 STC 74 =2004 AIR
SCW 6703 (SC 3member bench), it was held as follows,

(a) Provision of exemption should be strictly construed. It is not open to Court to ignore the
conditions prescribed in the exemption notification

(b) Mandatory rule must be strictly followed, while substantial compliance might suffice

in a directory rule

(c) Whenever the statute prescribed that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also
lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such
requirement is mandatory

(d) It is the cardinal rule of the interpretation that where a statute provides that a

particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in

any other way

Page | 16
(e) Where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed Tax laws are
required to be strictly construe in a taxing statute, one has to look at what is clearly said. There is no
equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing to be implied.

Statutes imposing taxes or monetary burdens are to strictly construed. The logic behind this principle
is that imposition of taxes is also a kind of imposition of penalty which can only be imposed if the
language of the statute unequivocally says so. Any kind of intendment or presumption as to tax does
not exist.

Charging Section –

The section that charges the tax must have clear words. Before taxing any individual, it

must be clearly established that the person to be taxed falls within the purview of the

charging section by clear words. There is no implication of the law. If a person cannot

be brought within the four corners of the law, he is free from tax liability.

Cases:

In Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. v Commercial Tax officer, the Supreme Court held

that in case of interpreting a taxing statute, one has to look into what is clearly stated.

There is no room for searching the intentions, presumptions or equity.

In Mathuram Agarwal v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that words

cannot be added or substituted to find a meaning in a statute so as to serve the

intention of the legislature. Every taxing statute must contain three aspects; subject of tax, person to
be taxed and the rate of tax.

Penal statutes

Page | 17
The phrase sentence of imprisonment for life was given plain meaning and it was held that sentence of
imprisonment for was given plain meaning and it was held that sentence of imprisonment life for life
means a sentence for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted persons natural if.

Cases:

 In Sanjay Dutt v. State - 1994 (5) SCC 402 (5member bench), it was observed that those not
covered by express language of the penal statute should not be roped in by stretching the
language of the law.

 In Isher Das v. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 1295 = 1972 Crl LJ 874 (SC), it was observed
that if there is reasonable doubt or ambiguity, the principle to be applied in construing a penal
act is that such doubt or ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person who would be
liable to the penalty’

 In M.U Joshi v M. V Shimpi, the appellant was convicted under section 16 of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act 1954 for selling adulterated butter. He contended that it was not
buttered within the meaning of the rules made under the Act because butter means butter
made from milk whereas he had sold butter made from curd. Further, the Act is a penal statute
the word butter had to be strictly construed in favour of the accused.

 In Seksaria Cotton Mill Limited Company v State of Bombay, as per a notification issued
under the Essential Supplies Act 1946, every manufacturer was required to submit true and
accurate information about his dealings; and delivery was defined to mean actual physical
delivery. The appellant, who had sold some bales to the purchaser who did not take delivery
because of some dispute with the appellant, asked his agent to keep the bales in go down
pending settlement. The appellant entered those bales as delivered in his return book. The
appellant was convicted by the High Court for not giving actual physical delivery. Allowing
the appeal, the Supreme Court said that when two reasonable interpretations are possible of a
penal statute, that which favours the accused should be accepted. It was held that since the
goods were actually delivered to the agent, the requirements under the Act were fulfilled
without straining the language.

Page | 18
  Chinubhai vs State of Bombay,is an important case in this respect. In this case, several
workers in a factory died by inhaling poisonous gas when they entered into a pit in the factory
premises to stop the leakage of the gas from a machine. The question was whether the
employer violated section 3 of the Factories Act, which says that no person in any factory
shall be permitted to enter any confined space in which dangerous fumes are likely to be
present.  The Supreme Court, while construing the provision strictly, held that the section
does not impose an absolute duty on the employer to prevent workers from going into such
area. It further observed that the fact that some workers were present in the confined space
does not prove that the employer permitted them to go there.  The prosecution must first
prove that the workers were permitted to enter the space to convict the accused.

6. – Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provision Fund Commissioner 2008 

3. HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

The doctrine of harmonious construction is one of the general principles of the interpretation of
statutes. They follow the principle of a statute shall be read as a whole and should confer benefits to
the people. It is the thumb rule to the interpretation of any statute. When there is a conflict between
two or more statutes or two or more parts of a statute then the doctrine 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.
• According to this rule, a statute should be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be
constructed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of
the whole statute and to remove any inconsistency or repugnancy.
• It brings harmony between the various lists referred to in Indian Constitution Schedule 7. (List of
legislation – Union list, State list, and Concurrent list).

Page | 19
• In the case in which it shall be impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s regarding
the provision shall prevail.
• A construction which makes one portion of the enactment a dead letter should be avoided since
harmonization is not equivalent to destruction.
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

Cases:

1. CIT V HINDUSTAN BULK CARRIERS (2003)3 SCC 57

the Supreme Court laid down five principles of rule of harmonious construction: -The courts must
avoid a head-on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions and they must construe the contradictory
provisions so as to harmonize them.
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 a way so that effect is given both the provisions as much as possible.
Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless number or
dead is not harmonious construction.

Page | 20
To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it fruitless.

2.In Re Kerala Education Bill Case 1957 the SC

uses the rule of harmonious construction and ruled that there is
no inherent conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy and that they
together constitute an integrated scheme. They constitute a comprehensive social and administrative
program for a modern democratic state. They are in fact supplementary and complementary to each
other. Therefore, as far as possible avoid any conflict among them. They run parallel to each other and
none is subordinate to the other.
• If two interpretations of law are possible and if one interpretation violates the harmony between the
two while the other reinforces the harmony, the latter interpretation shall be accepted over the former.
• However, if there is only one interpretation and that is conflicting them the court shall implement the
fundamental rights over the directive principles because the SC is duty-bound to implement the
fundamental rights.

3.Venkataramana Devaru VS. State of Mysore AIR 1997 SC1006

the SC applied the doctrine 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 manages 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)].
 4.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.

Page | 21
5.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.

6.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.

Page | 22
 CHAPTER 7

7. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRICT AND LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL

STATUES

STRICT CONSTRUCTION LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION

Strict Construction states that each word in Liberal construction indicates that the
legislation must be interpreted letter by letter, interpretation must be liberal in order to advance
and the interpretation must not go beyond the the legislation or accomplish the legislation’s
scope of the statute. purpose.

Page | 23
 Courts favour literal rule under this construction. Courts favour the golden rule or mischief rule
under this construction.

Taxing and criminal laws are strictly construed. The Employers State Insurance Act and the
Contract Labour Act are both liberally construed.

Strict construction denies widening the law,
resolving all reasonable disputes against the
applicability of penal Acts, and disabling
statutes.
It refers to the process through which legislation
is broadened in order to express legislative
purpose.
This construction implies that the bench believes
that the original text has all of the answers to any
present or future difficulties.
This strict construction can be used even if just
one interpretation is needed.
A strict interpretation is necessary for sales tax.
Liberal construction broadens the law by
resolving any reasonable uncertainties against
the applicability of welfare laws, unclear words
or sentences, and disabling statutes.
It refers to the process through which legislation
is constrained in order to express legislative
purpose.
If the legislation is unclear or ambiguous in
nature, this interpretation can be expanded to
grasp the attitudes and things change.
This statute construction is performed when a
statute does not allow for two or more
interpretations.
For the prevention of animal cruelty, a liberal
interpretation is necessary

The strict construction is interpreted rigidly by The liberal construction is freely interpreted by
the courts. They do not mistake in their the courts. They are not bound by the exact
interpretations of the legislation, and the decision interpretation of the law and can interpret it in a
is solely based on the original text. variety of ways using liberal construction.

Case:

Ravula Subba Rao and Another v. the Commissioner of Income-tax, (1956)

In this case, there is a distinction between strict and liberal construction in respect to the following
question: “Why should a statute be given a strict or liberal interpretation, depending on the situation?
The only possible accurate response is that the sort of construction used gives effect to the legislative
intention. Sometimes, in order to make the legislation effective, a liberal construction is required, and
sometimes, such construction will defeat the legislature’s intention. If this is the correct understanding

Page | 24
of the rule of construction to be followed, then a strict or liberal construction is simply a method of
extending or restricting the scope of a statute in order to convey the legislative meaning. If this is the
proper position to be given strict and liberal constructions, it would make no difference whether the
statute in question was penal, criminal, remedial, or in exemption of common right, because the
distinction based on this classification would be meaningless.”

CHAPTER 8

8. CONCLUSION

Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which to grant justice to all. The court aims
to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured justice to all. To ensure justice to all
the concept of canons of interpretation and constructions was expounded.

It is not necessary that the words used in a statute are always clear, explicit and unambiguous and
thus, in such cases it is very essential for courts to determine a clear and explicit meaning of the words

Page | 25
or phrases used by the legislature and at the same time remove all the doubts if any. Hence, all the
rules mentioned in the article are important for providing justice.

The objective is to assist the judicial body in determining the real intention of the legislature. Its aim
is also to ascertain the legal effect of the legal text . A statute may in certain aspects be a penal
enactment and in certain others a counteractive one. In respect of those provisions which are approved
on the pain of punishment for a crime, the rule of strict interpretation of penal statutes in the limited
sense may be applied. At any rate, as undue effort to construe such a provision liberally to encourage
the beneficent purpose behind it may be effectively counterbalanced on deliberation that a breach
thereof leads to penal consequences.

Thus, liberal and strict interpretations of penal legislation are applied to interpret regulations in their
own way. The strict interpretation of penal legislation is carefully construed in favour of the
individual being prosecuted. In the event of an ambiguity in the text of the provision, this rule
suggests a predilection for the subject’s liberty.

Criminal and penal laws must be rigidly construed and cannot be widened by intention, interpretation,
or fair considerations. If a liberal interpretation is established in criminal legislation, it must be for the
advantage of the public interest. Penal laws should not have a retrospective effect since it is harmful
to the accused’s interests.

The literal rule of interpretation will be used by the courts in strict interpretation. The golden rule of
interpretation, or the mischief rule, will be applied by the courts in liberal interpretation.

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 is 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.

Page | 26
 CHAPTER 9

9. WEBLIOGRAPHY
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1941/Harmonious-and-Beneficial-
Construction..html
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/liberal-and-strict-construction-of-penal-statutes/#:~:text=
%E2%80%9CStrict%20construction%E2%80%9D%20refers%20to%20the,known
%20as%20a%20strict%20construction.
 https://www.jusdicere.in/strict-interpretation-of-penal-statutes-in-india/
 https://classroom.google.com/u/0/c/NDk3MTgxNTY5MTA5
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/rules-interpretation-statutes/#Construction_meaning
 https://law.jrank.org/pages/10549/Strict-Construction.html

Page | 27
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 S.R.Myneni

Page | 28