Unit 4: Construction
4.1 Liberal Construction
The enlarged reading: the words given their full, generous scope — the beneficial purpose fulfilled. The liberal construction’s home: the remedial-and-beneficial statutes (U3.2.3), the constitutional rights (U5.1.3), the social legislation. The method: the purpose leads, the words follow (the “force of life” over the “letter’s death” — the classic’s contrast).
4.2 Beneficial Construction
The beneficiary-first reading: where the statute confers a benefit, every doubt resolved in the beneficiary’s favour — the construction that advances the remedy (the mischief rule’s heir in the welfare era). The beneficial canon’s examples: the workers’ compensation acts, the consumer statutes, the social security laws (the Consumer Protection Act 2075’s own reading style).
4.3 Restrictive/Literal Construction
The narrowed reading: the words’ strict meaning, nothing added — the penal-and-taxing statutes’ home (U3.2.1–3.2.2), the rights-removing statutes, the ouster clauses (the jurisdiction’s bar read narrowly — the presumption of U6.3). The literal construction’s discipline: the court will not extend the punishment or the burden by analogy (the criminal law’s no-analogy rule).
4.4 Construction Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
“It is better that a thing be of some effect than be destroyed”: the construction that keeps the provision alive — the validity-preserving reading (the provision read to operate, not to fail). The canon’s uses: the seemingly-conflicting provisions’ reconciliation; the constitutional provisions’ survival reading (the U5.1.2 face); the conditions (the words can bear the saving sense — the canon serves the text, never rewrites it).
4.5 Harmonious Construction
The statute’s wholeness: every provision given effect, the conflicts reconciled (the “no-provision-redundant” discipline — the Mimansa’s avyarthata twin). The method’s steps: the provisions read together; the apparent conflict dissolved; the one-provision’s-limits reading where necessary (the later-and-general yielding to the earlier-and-specific in the same Act’s world). The Nepali example’s genre: the Code family’s internal reconciliation (the 2074 Codes’ cross-references read as one system).
4.6 Construction to Avoid Collision with Other Provisions
The system-level harmony: the statute read to avoid the collision with the other statutes — the in pari materia’s extension (the statutes of the same field reconciled); the constitution’s supremacy face (the statute read, where possible, to survive the constitutional test — the presumption of constitutionality of U6.2); the treaty’s face (the statute read consistently with Nepal’s treaty obligations — U6.5).
This is a preview. The complete Interpretation of Law notes — full unit, Exam Focus box and model questions — are in the PDF / full version. Get the complete notes →