Paste your According to Webster Legal Dictionary, ‘PARI MATERIA’ is meant to be the same matter or the same subject. The general principle of in PARI MATERIA, a rule of statutory interpretation, says that laws of the same matter and on the same subject must be construed with reference to each other. The intent behind applying this principle is to promote uniformity and predictability in the law.
The basic rule of interpretation is to give effect to the plain meaning of the statute. If it is not clear and ambiguous, then the court can take recourse of different aids of interpretation. There are two types of aids of interpretation- internal aid and external aid. Internal aids mean the aid are within the statutes, e.g. – long title, short title, preamble, schedule, and any other provisions of the same Act. PARI MATERIA is considered to be an external aid.
PARI MATERIA means when two provisions of two different statues deal with the same subject matter and form part of the same subject matter. It is a Latin word. Use of PARI MATERIA is well established by the judiciary. In District Mining Officer and others v. Tata Iron & Steel Company and another. It was established that PARI MATERIA can be used as an external aid of interpretation. There is no authoritative definition of the expression PARI MATERIA.
NEED OF PARI MATERIA
It is important to know the need of PARI MATERIA. The reason behind Judiciary to use this principle is to avoid contradiction or conflict between/ among statutes dealing with the same subject matter. t helps to interpret the words of the later statute in the light of earlier statutes in the same context. If the words of a statute have been recognized and interpreted by the Judiciary in a particular way and it has already gained an authoritative value, then it is obvious that the statues having similar words/ context will be dealt in the same manner.
SITUATIONS WHERE PARI MATERIA IS APPLICABLE
1. DIFFERENT ACTS HAVING SAME SUBJECT MATTER – Similar language in statues with common purpose is interpreted in the same way. Different acts having same subject matter has to be read together. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Sriyanesh Knitters, The Supreme Court read the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 along with the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are held to be in PARI MATERIA with each other. The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 has to be read with other labour law in force that is Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and Contract Act 1970. It is generally applicable to public statutes or general statutes made at different times and in reference to the same subject matter.
2. ASSISTANCE OF AN EARLIER STATUE – It is a well-established principle that the later statutes are constructed in the light of earlier statutes. When same words are used in similar context in a later statute, it is presumed that they have same meaning as in the earlier statute. When the words of an earlier statute have got an authoritative exposition by a superior court, use of same words in similar context in a later Act gives rise to a presumption that Parliament intends that the same interpretation should also be followed for construction of those words in later statutes.
3. DIFFERENT STATUES ARE IN PARI MATERIA – Where there are different statutes are in PARI MATERIA though made at different times, or even expired, and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and constructed together, as one system, and as explanatory of each other.
4. STATUES HAVING NOT EXACTLY SAME SUBJECT MATTER – It is not necessary that the referring statute and the referred statute will have exactly same subject matter for calling them as PARI MATERIA with each other. Subject matter of the two Acts should not be identical for application of this rule. In State of Madras v A Vaidyanath Aiyer, section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was held PARI MATERIA with the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v. Union of India Section 20(c) of Code of Civil Procedure and Article 226(2) of Constitution of India are held to be in PARI MATERIA with each other. Decisions interpreting the former have been held to apply.
5. LATER STATUES IN PARI MATERIA WITH EARLIER ACTS – Generally an earlier Act which is in PARI MATERIA with the later Act is used to interpret the later statute. While interpreting the provisions of an earlier Act, the provisions of the later Act are normally not taken into consideration except in few exceptional cases. This kind of interpretation will not be allowed if the later Act is made to amend the earlier Act, then the later Act operates on its own. Later Act will become relevant only when there is some ambiguity or confusion with the meaning of the earlier Act. It can also be used if the provisions of the earlier Act are giving diverse meaning. The subsequent legislation cannot obviously alter the previous legislation, but if there is any ambiguity in the earlier statute, the later statute can clear the ambiguity by giving a proper interpretation.
In Smaje v. Balme to construe the phrase “Any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument” of Section 28(1) of the Larceny Act 1916 reference was made to the Prevention of Crimes Act 1953 and Section 23(5) of the Firearms Act 1937.
BENEFICIENT STATUES AND BENEFICIAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
A beneficial statute is a class of statute which seeks to confer benefit on individuals or class of persons by relieving them of onerous obligation under contracts entered into by them or which tend to protect persons against oppressive act from individuals with whom they stand in certain relations. The established principle in the construction of such statutes is there should not be any narrow interpretation. The court should attempt to be generous towards the persons on whom benefit should be conferred. When a statute is interpreted liberally to give the widest possible meaning to it, it is called beneficent construction. Beneficial construction is an interpretation to secure remedy to the victim who is unjustly denied of relief. The interpretation of a statue should be done in such a way that mischief is suppressed and remedy is advanced.
PRINCIPLES OF BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION
Beneficent construction involves giving the widest meaning possible to the statutes. When there are two or more possible ways of interpreting a section or a word, the meaning which gives relief and protects the benefits which are purported to be given by the legislation, should be chosen. A beneficial statute has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intent. Although beneficial legislation does receive liberal interpretation, the courts try to remain within the scheme and not extend the benefit to those not covered by the scheme. It is also true that once the provision envisages the conferment of benefit limited in point of time and subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, their non-compliance will have the effect of nullifying the benefit. There should be due stress and emphasis to Directive Principles of State Policy and any international convention on the subject.
There is no set principle of construction that a beneficial legislation should always be retrospectively operated although such legislation such legislation is either expressly or by necessary intendment not made retrospective. Further, the rule of interpretation can only be resorted to without doing any violence to the language of the statute. In case of any exception when the implementation of the beneficent act is restricted the Court would construe it narrowly so as not to unduly expand the area or scope of exception. The liberal construction can only flow from the language of the act and there cannot be placing of unnatural interpretation on the words contained in the enactment. Also, beneficial construction does not permit raising of any presumption that protection of widest amplitude must be deemed to have been conferred on those for whose benefit the legislation may have been enacted.
EXAMPLES FOR BENEFICIENT CONSTRUCTION
There are different kind of legislations which receive beneficent construction. Laws which are enacted with the object of promoting general welfare and facing urgent social demands receive beneficial legislations. Examples of statutes include The Factories Act, Industrial Disputes Act etc. In case of legislations which have may two different interpretations, the legislation which favours the class of persons for which it is purported should be preferred. In the case of Hindustan Level Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate, the court held that in a case related to prevention of unfair labour practice, during interpreting social welfare legislation, a construction should be placed on the relevant provisions which furthers the purpose for which such legislation was enacted.
Another example of beneficial construction of a statute is the Juvenile Justice Act. The earlier act of 1986 was replaced with a new act in 2000. Whereas the 1986 act defined the term ‘juvenile’ as a boy not having attained sixteen years of age or a girl not having attained the age of eighteen years, the 2000 act defined juvenile to mean a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. This issue came up for a consideration before the Constitution Bench in the case of Pratap Singh v State of Jharkhand. The Court looked into the object of the act, which is to provide for the care, protection treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected and delinquent juveniles. Further the acts were passed in discharge of obligation to follow the United Nations Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile justice. Since the acts were remedial in nature, beneficial construction was given to promote the beneficent object behind them.
In the landmark case of B Shah v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, court applied beneficent rule of construction in construing section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which makes the employer liable to pay maternity benefit to woman worker at the rate of average daily wage for the period of her actual absence immediately preceding and including the day of her delivery and for six weeks immediately following that day. The court held that Sundays must also be included and held that the Act was intended not only to subsist but also make up for her dissipated energy and take care of child. The Act was read in the light of Article 42.
One of the leading examples of liberal construction is in the interpretation of Section 123 of Railways Act 1989 which defined ‘untoward accident’ to include ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’. The question in contention before the court was whether ‘untoward accident’ will cover the instance of a passenger who fell down and died while trying to board the train. In deciding the case, the court said that there are couple of interpretations of ‘accidental falling’; first one being that it only applies when a person is inside the train while second includes a situation where person is trying to board a train and falls down. The relevant provision was deemed as a beneficial piece of legislation and hence received liberal and wide interpretation and hence the definition was expanded to include a passenger who fell off the train in the process of boarding it.
The rights of minor children to get maintenance from their father as provided in Section 127 of CrPC was construed not to have been taken away in respect of Muslims by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 section 3(b) which enabled a Muslim woman to claim maintenance for the minor children up to the age of two years only from her former husband. It was held by the court that the right of children to claim maintenance under CrPC was independent of right of divorced mother to claim maintenance for the infant children and former is not affected by 1986 Act.
in here…