Following are some of the General Principles which are frequently applied in courts while Interpreting Statutes in India –

Beneficial Construction ( Social Welfare Legislation ) ( “Salus populi est suprema lex” )

• This rule is based on the maxim, “Salus populi est suprema lex” which means, the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
• Beneficial construction means to promote public good and prevent misuse of power. An interpretation for the promotion of public good.
• Where the object of the legislation is to give the benefit to a particular class of persons, & the language of the statute fails to achieve that object, then the words of the statute must be given a more extended meaning so that the object of the legislation can be achieved.
• The beneficial construction shall be given to the Act only if the words of the legislature discloses the beneficent object. But if it clearly gives contrary intention, then it should not be given beneficial construction.
• According to Maxwell, beneficial construction is a tendancy (i.e. inclination), rather than a rule.
• Beneficial statutes should not be construed too restrictively. In case of doubt or two possible views, the beneficial legislation is to be interpreted in favour of beneficiaries.
• But, provision which is not provided in a statue should not be read into it only because it is beneficial legislation.
• Liberal interpretation does not mean that benefit can be given contrary to the provisions of the Act or in violation of statutory provisions ( SR Radhakrishnan v. Neelamegam)
• Where beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those not covered by it. ( Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co )
• While interpreting a procedural statute, such construction should be preferred as promotes justice and prevent miscarriage(failure of plan). The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the objective of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice (SK Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar)

Examples of Beneficial Legislation : The Employees P.F. Act, 1952, The Factories Act, 1948 , The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. ESI Act, 1948.

B. Shah v. Presiding Officer : The question before the court was interpretation of section 5 of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 under which an expectant mother employee could take a maximum of twelve weeks of maternity leave, pre-birth and post-birth, on full salary. The facts in that case were that a woman worker who went on maternity leave was paid seventy two days wages calculated on the basis of six day week for twelve weeks omitting twelve Sundays. Her average daily wages were calculated and were calculated and were then multiplied by seventy two. Her argument was that twelve weeks wages mean eighty four days wages as a week consisted of seven days. The SC while holding that amount of eighty four days wages should be paid to the woman worker, stated that, the statute is a beneficial piece of legislation intended for the purpose achieving social justice for women workers. Article 42 of the Constitution has recognised it as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Being a beneficial legislation with noble object in view, the enactment has to be interpreted beneficially.

Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab : In this case section 7 of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1949 directing that shops and establishments to which the Act applied shall remain closed one day in a week was held not to violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it was a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right because it ensures health and efficiency of the worker. The position would be same even if the business is being conducted by the owner and his family members.

On similar grounds, hours of employment of employees and opening and closing hours of shops or establishments cannot be held as violative of Article 19(1)(g)(Ramdhandas v. State of Punjab)

Beed District Central Co-Operative Bank v. State of Maharashtra :

The Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial statute. It is generally accepted that, when two views are possible, the statute may be constructed in favour of the workman. It is also held that, only because a statute is beneficent in nature, the same would not mean that it should be construed in favour of the workman only although they are not entitled to benefits thereof.

Alembic Chemical Works v. Workmen :

In this case workmen of the appellants were awarded more leave with wages by the Industrial Tribunal than, allegedly section 79(1) of the Factories Act authorised. This was challenged by the appellant on the ground that since the enactment had standardised the amount of leave of the workmen, sanctioning more leave by the Tribunal was unlawful. Rejecting this contention the Supreme Court held that the enactment being a welfare legislation, it had to be beneficially construed in favour of the respondents if the language was not capable of reaching one firm meaning. Since in the present case the provision was capable of two interpretations, one which was likely to defeat the policy of the Act and the other likely to achieve it by giving benefit to workmen, the latter construction had to be applied.

Baldev Sahai v. R.C. Bhasin : In this case the tenant who was living in the tenanted house with his parents, two sisters and a brother, left India to permanently settledown in Canada leaving his brother and mother in the house who kept on paying rent regularly. The landlord filed an application of ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-residence of the tenant under section 14(1)(d) & (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that his mother and brother could not be treated as members of his family. It was held by the SC that the word family must be given a wider meaning so as to include not only the head of the family but all members of descendants from the common ancestors who are actually living with the same head. The enactment, a beneficial legislation must be meaningfully construed so as to advance the object of the Act and curing any lacuna or defect appearing in the same. Naturally, therefore, family included near relations of the head of the family.

Shantha v. BG Shivananjappa : Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr PC) has been held to be a measure of social legislation and therefore has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children.

Harmonius Construction (सुसंवादीपणे अन्वयार्थ लावण्याचा नियम)

• Sometimes, two or more sections of the same statute are inconsistent or repugnant to each other. In such a case, the rule of harmonious construction is to be applied.
• The question as to whether separate provisions of the same statute are overlapping or are mutually exclusive may, however, be very difficult to determine.
• The basis of the Principle of harmonious construction is that, the legislature never intends to contradict itself by providing two repugnant provisions in the same statute.
• The rule of harmonious construction says that, when two or more provisions of the same statute are repugnant, the Court tries to construe these provisions in such a manner, if possible, as to give effect to both by harmonising them with each other.
• This principle has been applied in a very large number of cases dealing with the interpretation of Constitution.
• 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 (harmoniousness) with the intention of Rule-makers.
• Rule of harmonious construction is applicable to subordinate legislation also.
• Each word in enactment must be allowed to play its role however significant or insignificant it may be in achieving legislative intent and promoting legislative object.

Dewan Singh v. Rajendra Pd Ardevi : The entire statute must be first read as a whole, then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word and the relevant provisions must be read harmoniously.

British Airways Plc v. Union of India : An effort should be made to give effect to all provisions of a statute and for that purpose any provisions of the statute should be construed with reference to the other provisions so as to make it workable. A particular provision cannot be interpreted to defeat the other provision made in that behalf under the statute.

Raj Krishna v. Binod : The question before the court was the conflict between sections 33(2) and 123(8) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 33(2) empowers a government servant to nominate or second a candidate seeking election to the State Legislative Assembly whereas section 123(8) says that a government servant is not entitled to assist a candidate in an election in any manner except by casting his vote. Holding that a government servant was entitled to nominate or second a candidate seeking election to the State Legislative Assembly, the Supreme Court held that both these provisions should be harmoniously interpreted. Harmony was possible only if section 123(8) of the Act is interpreted as conferring power on a government servant of voting as well as or proposing and seconding a candidature and forbidding him from assisting a candidate in any other manner.

M.S.M. Sharma v. Krishna Sinha : The petitioner, an editior of a newspaper was asked to show cause notice as to why should he not be punished for a breach of privilege of the House guaranteed by Article 194(3)(a) of the Constitution for publishing a speech made in the State Legislative Assembly without expunging certain remarks as directed by the Speaker. In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, he argued that the proposed action against him would be contrary to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that expediency demanded that Article 19(1)(a) and 194(3) had to be harmoniously interpreted. To give effect to both these provisions, it was necessary to hold that fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was subject to the privileges of Houses guaranteed by Article 194(3). The petition was therefore dismissed.

Application of the Rule : This rule can be applied for resolving a conflict between

1. A provision of an Act & rule made thereunder
2. Two different Acts.
3. Construction of statutory rules.
4. Construction of statutory orders.
5. Construing provisions of subordinate legislation.

The essence of rule of harmonious construction is that,

“ Effect should be given to both.”

Mimansa Rules of Interpretation

• Mimansa rules of interpretation (MIP) are our traditional rules of interpretation for over 2500 years, but which are unfortunately ignored in our Courts of law today.
• Surjit Singh v. MTNL : “ Any systemof interpretation which helps in resolving difficulty can be used by the courts. Mimansa rules of interpretation are our traditional rules. There is no constitutional or statutory compulsion for using Maxwell’s interpretation principles only.”
• Principles of interpretation are not principles of law but are only a methodology for explaining the meaning of words used in a text. Any system of interpretation can be utilised to resolve a duty. (B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal)

Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd v. Essar Power Ltd –

In the Mimansa system, there are three ways of dealing with conflicts :

(i) Where two texts which are apparently conflicting are capable of being reconciled, then by the principle of harmonious construction, which is called as “samanjasya” principle in Mimansa.

(ii) Where it is impossible to reconcile, the two texts conflicting tests despite all efforts. In this situation, the “vikalpa” principle applies, which says that, whichever law is more in consonance with reason and justice should be preferred. (Only when all efforts to reconcile fails, vikalp principle may be applied.)

(iii) In 3^rd situation where there are two conflicting irreconcilable texts but one overrides the other because of its great force. This is known as badha in the Mimansa system which is similar to the doctrine of ultra vires.

Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commr of Customs : The SC observed :

It is deeply regretted that in Indian Courts of law, lawyers quote Maxwell and Craies but nobody refers to the Mimansa principles of interpretation. The Mimansa rules of interpretation were used in our country for atleast 2500 years, whereas Maxwell’s first edition was published only in 1875. These principles were regularly used by great Indian Jurists like Vijneshwara(mitakshara), Jimutvahan(Dayabhaga) etc. where they found conflict between the different smritis or any ambiguity.

It is nowhere mentioned in our Constitution or any other law that only Maxwell’s principle can be used by the courts. In certain situtations, Maxwell’s principle would be appropriate in other situations the Mimansa principles may be more suitable.

Uttar Pradesh State Agro-Industrial Corporation Limited v. Kisan Upbhokta Parishad : The SC held that the words ‘agricultural implement’ would not cover animal driven vehicle. Implement means tools and animal driven vehicle is not an implement. In this case also the Supreme Court strongly recommended the applying of Mimansa rules of interpretation, wherever required and expressed a deep regret that these principles have rarely been used in our law courts.

Even Justice Markandey Katju has expressed his views that, most of the Mimansa Principles are rational and scientific and can be utilised in the legal field.