Lavanya Goinka
Courts of law are responsible for interpreting statutes. To assist citizens in construing or interpreting laws, courts have constructed a wide and complex collection of rules. The majority of interpreting laws are found in books of statute interpretation, and it is beneficial to the drafter to keep these interpreting laws in mind when creating Acts. When interpreting Canadian laws, for example, the interpretation of statutes must strictly follow every Canadian Act that is remedial to its Act and acquire reasonable, broad, and liberal construction to ensure that the Act’s purpose, which defines the Act’s original objective, meaning, and character, is met.
Interpretation is the process of finding the legal meaning of any legislation that means more than construction. The finding of the meaning of a parliamentary Act or a provision of a parliamentary Act is referred to as interpretation. The extraction of grammatical meaning is a major focus of construction.
“Strict construction” refers to the interpretation which is made strictly, that assures each word in legislation must be interpreted by letter and that the interpretation should never go beyond the statute. A close or narrow reading of interpretation is known as a strict construction.
What is a liberal construction of statute
The word “liberal construction” refers to interpretation that is freely used with the goal of assuring the legislation’s purpose or furthering its goals. The courts will have to pick between the golden rule and the mischief rule in this scenario. The ability of the Bench to interpret several variables in determining the meaning of a word or document is referred to as “liberal construction.” The author most likely meant what the reader thinks, according to this view. The interpretation must be broad in scope in order to promote or discover the state’s objectives. Liberal construction is utilised in the case of welfare legislation, unclear terminology or phrasing, and prohibitive statutes.
Beneficial or benevolent legislation, such as the Employer’s State Insurance Act of 1948 and the Contract Labour Act of 1970, are examples of liberal construction. The golden rule and the mischief rule, as alluded to by courts, regulate this conception. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 is an important piece of legislation that safeguards consumers’ interests. It should be construed broadly. A provision in legislation providing incentives for growth and development should be flexibly interpreted to ensure that the true goal of the encouragement is not hampered.
According to Viscount Simon L.C., “the golden rule is that the terms of a statute must prima facie be assigned their customary interpretation.” “The natural and normal meaning of words shall not be departed from unless it can be demonstrated that the legal context in which the words are employed requires a different interpretation,” the argument goes. When interpreting a phrase with an exemption clause, the terms must be interpreted liberally, with no abuse of the language. It’s worth noting, nevertheless, that irrational interpretation outcomes should be avoided at all costs. Judges refer to the golden rule and the mischief rule when they interpret the law liberally.
Liberal construction or the beneficial rule are inapplicable:
When the Court concludes that following the liberal interpretation rule would result in re-legislating a statute provision by substituting, adding, or modifying its terms. If that’s the case, this construction isn’t applicable.
The application of a phrase in law that can only have one interpretation is impossible. Liberal Construction, on the other hand, can be used when a phrase has multiple meanings.
The application of Liberal construction is not conceivable if the statute’s provision is obvious, unequivocal, and without dispute.
- Union of India v. Tata Chemicals, (2001), cited with favour in Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001). (2014)
When a provision does not allow for more than one interpretation, the literal interpretation must be employed – Collector of Central Excise v. Saurashtra Chemicals (2007)
Only when two points of view are accessible does the assumption of open interpretation of benefit law apply – Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provision Fund Commissioner 2008
Case laws:
1.Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, (2010)
In this case, the appellant’s experienced lawyer contended that remedial statutes, rather than punitive statutes, are preferable to penal statutes, such as welfare, beneficent, or social justice focused legislation. Welfare statutes should be interpreted broadly. To obtain the remedies envisioned by the legislation, they must be construed. It is well known, and there is no need to reiterate, that labour and welfare regulations must be construed widely and liberally, with due regard for state policy direction principles. Welfare, beneficent, or social justice-oriented statutes should be interpreted liberally at all times. This was the decision in this case.
2.Reliance General Insurance v. Om Prakash (2017)
The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 is a good piece of law that should be broadly construed in order to protect consumers’ interests. This was the final decision.
3.Suresh v. Secretary (1999)
The Contract Labor Regulation Act of 1970 is a useful piece of law that should be given the fullest possible interpretation in terms of its terms. A question posed in the matter of interpreting beneficial legislation with a liberal construction would not be appropriate, nor would a question posed in the matter of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach. Courts are created for the benefit of society, and a question posed in the matter of interpreting beneficial legislation with a narrow pedantic approach would not be appropriate.
