CONSTRUCTION EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
The maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusion alterius’ means that when one or more
thing of a class are mentioned then the other things of same class are excluded.
This maxim states that if one or more things are clearly specified in a statute,
then it excludes the same things. This maxim is applicable in the cases where
specific words are mentioned in statutes.
For Example- If a statute clearly refers dairy products then it will only refers to
dairy products and will not include any other food items.
Case- Khemka and Company vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1975 SC 1579)-
In this case supreme court applied the principle of ‘expressio unius est exclusion
alterius’ and held that penalty provisions in the Central and state legislations
were special provisions of each act and are not part of general sales tax law of
the Centre or the State.
CONSTRUCTION CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIO EST
FORTISSIMA IN LEGE
The maxim ‘contemporanea exposition est fortissimo in lege’ means that the
contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in the law. Coke was the
first person who propounded this principle. This principle states that the best
way to construe a document is to read as it would read when made. This is
generally applicable to the old statutes because while interpreting the old
statutes high regard must be paid to the meanings given to them by the judges
of that time because they were in a better position to judge the intention of
legislature at that time.
But in the cases where it is clearly established that an
enactment has been wrongly interpreted again and again, then the court should
correct the past mistakes and construe the meaning which is correct.
Case- Raja Ram vs State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 828)- In this case supreme
court refused to apply the rule of contemporonea expositio while interpreting
section 25 of the Indian evidence act, 1872 on the ground that the act is
comparatively a modern act.
Case- M/s J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited vs Union of India
(AIR 1988 SC 191)- In this case it was held that the maxim contemporonea
exposition is applicable in construing ancient statutes and not in interpreting
acts which are comparatively modern.
BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION
The principle of beneficial construction states that if the general object of an act
is to benefit a particular class of persons and any provision of such act is that
which is ambiguous or is capable to have to meanings, then the court must give
the meaning to the statute which benefits the persons for whom the act is made.
The main aim of this principle is to benefit the persons for whom the law is made
because the primary objective of legislation is to provide maximum benefit to the
general public through Beneficial statutes. Beneficial Construction is a tendency
rather than a rule.
Case- U. Unichoyi vs State of Kerala (AIR 1962 SC 12)- In this case the
constitutional validity of minimum wages act, 1948 was challenged. Court in this
case held that the minimum wages act, 1948 is a beneficial legislation so it must
be construed in the favour of worker and hence constitutionally valid.
Case- Mani Subrat Jain vs Raja Ram (AIR 1980 SC 299)- In this case it was
held that that rent control legislation in a country of terrible accommodation
shortage is a beneficial measure whose construction must be liberal enough to
fulfil the statutory purpose and not frustrate it.
Case- Lalappa Lingappa vs L.V. Textile mills (AIR 1981 SC 852)- In this case
it was held by the Supreme court that while construing a social welfare
legislation, the court should aopt the beneficient rule of construction. The court
further held that if two constructions are possible, then the construction which
is more beneficial to the persons and fulfil the policy of the act will be preferred.
Case- SK Verma vs Industrial Tribunal cum Labour court (AIR 1981 SC 422)-
In this case it was held by the supreme court that the welfare statutes must
receive a broad interpretation.
STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL STATUTES
It is a major principle of interpretation that the penal statutes should be strictly
constructed. It means that each word in the statute should be interpreted by the
words of the statute and not with spirit behind the statute. This principle states
that a statute enacting an offence or penalty must be strictly construed.
This principle states that if the reasonable interpretation of the statute is in the
favour of the person who would be liable to the penalty than such an
interpretation must be given to the statute and if there are two reasonable
constructions the court must interpret the more lenient construction. A penal
statute should not be construed as to narrow down the words to exclude the
cases which falls in its ambit.
Case- Kishan Chand vs State of Haryana (AIR 2014 SC 2561)- In this case it
was held that penal provisions providing harsher punishments and with clear
intendment of definite compliance need to be strictly construed.
STRICT SCONSTRUCTION OF TAXING STATUTES
Taxing statutes refers to the statutes which deals with tax. It is also known as
fiscal statutes. These statutes imposing taxes or monetary burdens should be
strictly construed. It means that each word in the statute should be interpreted
by the words of the statute and not with spirit behind the statute. This principle
states that a statute imposing offence or monetary burdens must be strictly
construed.
This principle also states that if there are two reasonable interpretation of the
statute, then the statute which is in the favour of assessee will be construed.
Case- District Registar and Collector vs Canara Bank (AIR 2005 SC 186)- In
this case it was held that remedial statutes and statutes which have come to be
enacted on demand of the permanent public policy generally receive a liberal
interpretation. However, fiscal statutes cannot be classed as such, operating as
they do to impose burdens upon the public and are, therefore, construed
strictly.
Case- Union of India vs Onkar S. Kanwar (AIR 2002 SC 3653)- In this case it
was held that if two views are possible then the one which is in favour of the
assesse must be adopted.