[Landmark Judgement] Rohitash Kumar v/s Om Prakash Sharma (2013)

Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: 27 November 2022 at 17:36 IST

Court – Supreme Court of India

Citation – Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma (2013) 11 SCC 451

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for the court to twist the clear language of the enactment in order to avoid any real or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause. It is held that while interpreting the provision, the court does not have the power to add or subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but legislation.

Para – 27

The court has to keep in mind the fact that, while interpreting the provisions of a statute, it can neither add, nor subtract even a single word. The legal maxim “A verbis legis non est recedendum” means, “from the words of law, there must be no departure”. A section is to be interpreted by reading all of its parts together, and it is not permissible to omit any part thereof.

The court cannot proceed with the assumption that the legislature, while enacting the statute has committed a mistake; it must proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said; even if there is some defect in the phraseology used by it in framing the statute, and it is not open to the court to add and amend, or by construction, make up for the deficiencies, which have been left in the Act.

The Court can only iron out the creases but while doing so, it must not alter the fabric, of which an Act is woven. The Court, while interpreting statutory provisions, cannot add words to a statute, or read words into it which are not part of it, especially when a literal reading of the same produces an intelligible result.

Drafted By Abhijit Mishra

Key Words – Enactment, Literal Interpretation, Legislation.

Related Post