CONSTRUCTION

There are generally three type of construction

1. Beneficial Construction
2. Restrictive Construction
3. Strict Construction

Beneficial Construction:
1. Interpretation ke general rule kehta hai ki statute men kuchh words
certain cases men apni common meaning se bahar kardiye jate hain or
un cases ko unnecessarily include karne ke constrained(bond) nahi hona
chahiye,
2. per is rule ka ek exception yeh bhi hai ki jab Statute ke objective Certain
cases ko exclude rakhne se poore nahi horahe to un cases ko extensively
ya widely interpreted karne ke baad include kar lena chahiye.
3. Jaise ke (however) jab koi word ambiguous hai aur ussey kair mayne
nikal rahi hain jo ki controversy paida kar rahi hain to us problem ko
Beneficial construction ke dwara resolve karna chahiye.
4. aur jahaper Statute ke do meaning nikal rahe hon to jo meaning benefit
preserve karti ho usko adopt karlena chahiye or doosri meaning ko drop
kar dena chahiye
5. Court ko ghalat Statute supply nahi kiya jayega yeh ek important point
hai. yeh hum jante hain kisi bhi statute kee wider or narrower
interpretation ho sakti hai court dono interpretation technique men se
koi bhi technique adopt kar sakta hai jis se legislature ka object metout
ho jai. same isi tarah se court legislature ka object hasil karne ke liye
kisi bhi statute ki extensive interpretation de sakta hai jahan per
legislature kee provide kari gai language suspective ya apna object haasil
karne ke qaabil nahi hai.
6. B Shah vs. Presiding Officer AIR 1978 ke case men yeh sawal tha ke
Maternity Benefits Act 1961 ke Section 5 ke According Koi bhi mother
12 weeks ki leave full salary per le sakti hai. Lekin ek Aurat ke case men
uski Salary 6 din ke hisaab se 12 weeks ki salary 7 din aur 12 haftey ki
jagah paid ki gai to Supreme Court ne kaha is Statute ke do meaning

nikal hain ek to 6 din aur ek 7 din lekin doctorine of Benefital

construction ke according hum jo zyada benefit preserv karta hai usko
lete hain is supreme court ne 7 din ke hisab se salary pay karne ka order
passed kar diya.
7. Isiliye MAXWELL ne kaha hai ki Benefitial construction ek tendency hain
na ki ek rule. kiyunki koi bhi principle jo human tendency ke according
hota hai wahi sustainable aur acceptable hota hai or legislature ka
objective bhi yahi ki wo logon ke tendency, nature, happiness etc ke
according hi rule making kare.
8. aese hi U unichoyi Vs State of Kerala 1963 ke case men yeh objection tha
ke Minimum wages Act 1948 constitution ke Article 19(1)(g) ke totally
against hai kiyun ki usmen koi minimum wages decided nahi bulki who
employer ki power hai jaise wh sahi samjhe wages per hiring kare. isiliye
court ne ye kaha ke Under develop countries men unemployment bahut
hota hai isliye log bahut kam wages per log kam karne lagte hain jo ki
nahi hona chahiye.

STRICT CONSTRUCTION:
1- Strict construction ek legal philosophy hai jo Judicial interpretation ko
restrict ya under limit rakhti hai aur court ko sirf written text jo pehle hi
ascertained ya decided ho chukaa ho ko apply karne ke liye karti hai aur
uske aage koi steps court apply nahi karegi
2- aur court ko Statute ya constitution se inference (mafhoom, khulasa)
drawing bhi avoid karna chahiye lekin court ambiguous ya unclear
language ki condition men constructin kar sakti hai per agar language
plain or clear hai to court ko palin ya clear meaning hi apply karna
chahiye
3- Strict Construction liberal construction se bilkul juda hai jo court ko
permission deta hai statute ke object ke liye jo reasonable aur fair ho
usko documents per apply karna chahiye.
Applicability in Penal Statutes 1. ek Penal Statute Strictly
Constructed ho chahiye iska seedha meaning hai Criminal Statute apne

khud ke implication or intention se fair ya reasonable ya justified term ke

beyond enlarge nahi kiye ja sakte hain 2. or yeh fundamentally
important hai ki democratically society men Law reasonable or
ascertainable (qabil e tahqeeq) hona chahiye nahi to citizen ke basic
writes deprive (mehroom) ho jayenge . 3. isi tarah koi Imprecise law ya
interpretation kisi bhi accused ko baghair kisi menadatory inspection ya
examination ke uske rights deprive karsakti hai jo ki uske besic rights ka
clear violation hoga isiliye accused jabhi punished kiya ja sakta hai jab
wo qanoon ke charon khaney men girey 4. for example Seksaria
Cotton mills vs. State of Bombay ke case men supreme court kehta hai ki
yeh court ki fundamental duty hai ki ambiguous words ki interpretation
aese broad or librel sense men kare taki koi honest, uneducated citizen
usment na phanse.5. agar Penal Statute ke provision 2 reasonable
construction ke capable hai to dono reasonable interpretation construc
ki jayengi aur phir unmen jo provision accused ko panlity se exempt ya
penality ko kam kare wo construction accused per apply kiya jayega
chahen phir uska jurm kitna bhi sangeen kiyun na ho. usper doosra
construction apply nahi kiya jayega. . 6. agar Penal Statute ke
provisions accused ko ambiguity ki wajah se azaad kardete hain to yeh
legislature kii duty hai ki who is problem ko fix karien yeh duty court ki
nahi hai 7. for example Chinubhai vs State of Bombay is case men
Kai employe zahrilee gas inhale karne se margaye the jab wey Factory
premises ke ik pit men ik machine ka lekage band karne ke liye ander
gaye thaiy.. ab sawal yeh that ki Employed ne Factory act ka Section 3 ka
Violation kiya hai jo kehta hai koi bhi person kisi bhi Factory ke
restricted area men jahan dangerous things maujood hon bina Factory ki
permission ke entered nahi karega phir Supreme court ne kaha ke
factory ke provision employer per koi absolute duty impose nahi karte.
Applicability in Taxing Statutes 1. Tax government ka ek revenue
source hai jismen government janta se paise collect karti hai unhi ke
welfare purpose ke liye or yeh government ka right hai ki ke wo as
provision tax collect kare Article 14 ke according .. 2. Supreme court

CIT vs. Shahzada Nand and Sons ke case men kehta hai ki agar
provision ambiguous hai or agar uska interpretation per accused clear
sabit hota hai to usko free kar dena chahiye court ko kisi or statute ya
provision ki madad se usko trap nahi karna chahiye agar wo azaad hua
jaa raha hai to yahi legislature ka intention thaa usko court fix nahi kar
sakta hai3. Taxing Statute ke Strict interpretation ke principle ko
Rowaltt J. bahut achhi tarah se defined kiya hai Cape Brandy Syndicate
vs. I.R.C. ke case men jismem wo kehte hain Taxing statute men
intention ki koi jagah nahi hai aur nahi koi presumption hai. usmen na
to kuchh bhi padha jana hai or nahi kuchh bhi implied kiya jana hai.
kiyunki Taxing Statute men construction ka koi bhi scope nahi hai.lekin
jahan per kisi word ki reasonable meaning per tax avoid ho sakta hai to
court ko wahi interpretation apply karna chahiye. aage wo likhte hain jab
provision reasonably open ho particular meaning ke liye then usper
restrictive construction apply nahi kiya jasake ga. lekin iska yeh matlab
nahi hai ki equity aur taxation completely stranger hain aesa CIT vs J H
Kotla Yadgir ke case men yeh kaha gaya hai .. 4. Strict Construction ke
rule charging provision ko apply karne ke liye hote hain naki Charge
create karne ke liye.

RESTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTION:
1. Restrictive Construction unreasonable results ko avoid karne ka ek
alternative construction hai. Restrictive construction wahan apply kiya ja
sakta hai jahn statute ke litral ya grammatical words unreasonable
result creat kar sakte hain.
2. Mexwell ke anusaar: Kuch aese certain objects hote hain jinko legislature
ne presume nahi kiya hota hai to construction se unko avoid kar diya
jata hai.
3. court ko bhi aese grammatical construction avoid karna chahiye jo
unreasonable hon aur aese grammatical construction karna chahiye jo
legaislature ke object ko fulfill kar saken

4. interpretation ka basic rule yeh kehta hai ki statute ka interpretation

ordinary language men hona chahiye. interpretation men tricky or
ambiguous words use nahi karna chahiye.
5. agar provision men pehle hi ordinary language di hui hai jis se us
provision ka exact matlat nikal aata hai to interpretation construct karne
ki koi zuroorat nahi hai.