IOS

UNIT-8 INTERPRETATION OF REMEDIAL STATUTES

SYNOPSIS
 Introduction
 Liberal Construction of Remedial Statutes
 When two interpretations are possible
 Welfare Legislations
 Retrospective construction
 Distinction between Remedial Statutes and Penal Statutes.

I. INTRODUCTION
Remedial statutes are enacted with the purpose of introducing social reform by improving the
conditions of certain class of persons who might not have been fairly treated in the past.
Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath (1969) In this case it was observed that it is probably true
that all legislation in a welfare state is enacted with the object of promoting general welfare, but
certain types of enactments are more responsive to some urgent social demands and also have more
immediate and visible impact on social vices by operating more directly to achieve social reforms.
Such legislations prohibit certain acts by declaring them invalid, and at the same time, they provide
for redress or compensation to the person aggrieved by such acts.
This means that such statutes do not impose penalty on the offender but merely provide for redressal
to the injured party. Such legislation can be classed as remedial statutes.

II. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF REMEDIAL STATUTES

In constructing a remedial statute, it should be given the widest operation its language would permit.
The court should construe the phraseology of the statute so as to give the most complete remedy
intended by the statute and so that the purpose of the legislation may be allowed to be achieved
rather than frustrated.
Where the legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the court is not to
make inroads by making etymological excursions.
The court should be more concerned with the colour, the content and the context of the statute rather
than with its literal import and should have due regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Arnit Das v. State of Bihar (2000)
Section 2 (e), Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, defines delinquent juvenile and 2 (h) defines juvenile.
Section2 (e), Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 ) defines juvenile in
conflict with law.
The whole object of the Acts is to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and
rehabilitation of neglected and delinquent juveniles. Those Acts are to discharge these obligations
and follow the UN Minimum Rules known as Beijing Rules. Thus the act being remedial in nature,
its provisions should be given liberal construction to promote this object.
The interpretation should be placed on provisions in such a way that the purpose of the legislation
may be allowed to be achieved rather than frustrated or stultified.

III. WHEN TWO INTERPRETATIONS ARE POSSIBLE

If a section or provision in a remedial statute is capable of two interpretations, then one which
furthers the policy and object of the act and which is more beneficial to the employees should be
given effect to.
In case of doubt, the court may construe a provision narrowly so as not to unduly expand the scope
of the area of exception.
However, if the provisions are capable of only one meaning, plain meaning thereof should be given
effect to.

IV. WELFARE LEGISLATIONS

In case of social benefit-oriented legislation, that is, social welfare legislation, for example, the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, its provisions should be construed as broadly as possible in
consumers favour to obtain the purpose of the enactment.
However, it has to be remembered that in doing so, no violence to the language is permitted.
V. Retrospective construction
Presumption against retrospective construction is applied with less insistence in the case of welfare
legislations and remedial statutes. A remedial Act is not necessarily retrospective.
The effect of a beneficial legislation is not construed to be defeated by a subsequent legislation
except through a clear provision.

VI. DISTINCTION BETWEEN REMEDIAL STATUTES AND PENAL STATUTES.

1. Remedial statutes deal with the wrong against an individual while penal statutes deal with the
wrongs against the state.
2. Remedial statutes deal with those matters which affect the individual only while penal statutes
deal with those matters which affect the whole community.
3. Remedial statutes provide remedy for infringement of private civil rights of individuals while
penal statutes provide punishment for public wrongs.
4. Remedial statutes deal with such wrongful acts for which remedy is civil action while penal
statutes deal with such wrongful acts, the commission of which attracts punitive action.
5. The remedy for wrongful acts is in the form of damages or compensation to aggrieved party but
the wrong doer is not held liable for any penalty. While in penal statutes penalty such as
imprisonment, fine, forfeiture etc. is imposed on the offender.
6. Duty is fixed by the party in remedial statutes. While duty is fixed by the state in penal statutes.
7. Injured party takes action in remedial statutes while state takes action and state is prosecuting
agency in penal statutes.
8. Proof of negligence is sufficient in remedial statutes while in penal statutes negligence along with
criminal intention must be proved to constitute an offence or crime.
9. Remedial statutes are also known as welfare, beneficial or social justice-oriented legislation.
10. Remedial statutes are enforced by law when suit is filed by aggrieved person in Civil Court or in
the Tribunal. In case of violation of penal law state initiates the action against the criminal in
criminal courts.
11. Remedial statutes received liberal or beneficial construction. The penal statutes are strictly
construed.
12. In remedial statutes the doubt is resolved in favour of class of persons for whose benefit the
statute is enacted while in penal statutes the doubt is resolved in favour of the alleged offender.