Every legislation is made for the benefit for the citizens of any country, directly or indirectly, in a welfare state. This is because the intention of legislature is always to make such laws which will either, in the form of new law or changes of the previous one, to tackle the new complications came into existence or make it as per the contemporary social need respectively. In the words of interpretation such process is properly known as supressing the mischief and advancing the remedy. Then the primary question which arises is whether all the legislations are beneficially constructed by the court and if not then why. Further as the Court always have a duty, firstly, to abide by the textual interpretation because it is presumption that the legislative words are itself the intention of legislation and no need to go beyond that. Then, secondly, the Court applies any of golden, mischief or purposive rule of interpretation for finding the intention of legislature. The Court thus anyway have to bind by the intention of legislature and the beneficial rule of  construction gives a wider scope to match out with the intention by giving wider interpretation. Therefore it can be rightly assumed that such beneficial legislation certainly have a larger public interest and more welfare ambitions. In light of beneficial construction or interpretation the court read the text differently but even thenit doesn’t allow the court to legislate the laws because it is not a competent authority to do so.

Keywords: Benefit, Welfare, Intention, Social need, Mischief, Remedy, Presumption, Purposive, Wider, Scope, Public interest, Textual, Legislate, Competent, Authority.

 Download Full Paper