LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF REMEDIAL STATUTES :
Every modern legislation is actuated with some policy and speaking broadly has some
beneficial object behind it. But then there are legislations which are directed to cure some
immediate mischief and bring into effect some type of social reform by ameliorating the
condition of certain class of person who according to present-day notions may not have been
fairly treated in the past. Such legislations prohibit certain acts by declaring them invalid and
provide for redress or compensation to the persons aggrieved. If a statute of this nature does
not make the offender liable to any penalty in favour of the State, the legislation will be classified
as remedial. Remedial statutes are also known as welfare, beneficial or social justice oriented
legislations.
Remedial statutes are one which remedy a defect in the pre-existing laws, statutory or
otherwise. Their purpose is to keep pace with the views of society. They serve to keep our
system of jurisprudence upto date and in harmony with new ideas or conceptions of what
constitutes just and proper human conduct. Their legitimate purpose is to advance human rights
and relationships. Unless they do this, they are not entitled to be known as remedial legislations.
Manifestly, a construction which far promotes improvement in the administration of justice and
the eradication of defects in our system of jurisprudence should be favoured over one which
perpetuates wrong.
Remedial statutes are liberally construed and in cases of doubt or ambiguity that
construction is adopted which will best advance the remedy provided and help to suppress the
mischief against which it was aimed. The words of a remedial statute must be construed so far
as they reasonably admit so as to secure that the relief contemplated by the statute shall not be
denied to the class intended to be relieved.
In construing a remedial statue the courts ought to give to it the widest operation which
its language will permit. The words of such a statute must be so construed as to give the most
complete remedy which the phraseology will permit, so as to secure that the relief contemplated
by the statute shall not be denied to the class intended to be relieved. In the field of labour and
welfare legislation which have to be broadly and liberally construed the Court ought to be more
concerned with the colour and content and the context of the statute rather than with its literal
import.
Equitable considerations may find an important place in the construction of beneficent
provisions particularly in the field of criminal law. The rule as stated and explained above only
means that if a section in a remedial statute is reasonably capable of two constructions that
construction should be preferred which furthers the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to
those in whose interest the Act may have been passed; and the doubt if any should be resolved
in their favour.
The provisions of a statute must be construed with reference to their context and with
due regard to the object to be achieved and the mischief to be prevented. Rent Control Act
should be interpreted reasonably and literally. They should be interpreted so as to give effect to
the objects of the statute and not to defeat them.
Even while giving liberal construction to socially beneficent legislation, if the language is
plain and simple, the working of law-making being a matter for the Legislature and not the
Courts, the Court must adopt the plain grammatical construction. The Court must take the law
as it is. And, accordingly, it is not entitled to pass judgment on the propriety or wisdom of
making a law in the particular form and further the Court is not entitled to adopt the construction
of a statute on its view of what Parliament ought to have done. However, when two
constructions are possible and legitimate ambiguity arises from the language employed, it is a
plain duty of the court to prefer and adopt that construction which enlarges the protection of a
protection of a socially beneficent statute rather than on which restricts it. In case of ambiguity, a
remedial should, however, be construed beneficially.
Equitable considerations may find an important place in the construction of beneficial
provisions particularly in the field of criminal law. In Bhagirath Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR
1985 SC 1050, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision and held that the beneficent
provisions of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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.
