the interpretation which serves the object and purport of the Act must be given effect to

Supreme Court of India
Nathi Devi vs Radha Devi Gupta on 17 December, 2004
Author: B Singh
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  5027 of 1999

PETITIONER:
Nathi Devi

RESPONDENT:
Radha Devi Gupta

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2004

BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIAVA, B.P. SINGH, H.K. SEMA & S.B. SINHA

JUDGMENT:

It is well settled that literal interpretation should be given to a statute if the same does not lead to an absurdity.

In Nasiruddin and others vs. Sita Ram Agarwal : (2003) 2 SCC 577 this Court stated the law in the following terms :-

37. The court's jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation. It is also necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has not used any superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of the legislation must be gathered from the language used. It may be true that use of the expression shall or may is not decisive for arriving at a finding as to whether statute is directory or mandatory. But the intention of the legislature must be found out from the scheme of the Act. It is also equally well settled that when negative words are used the courts will presume that the intention of the legislature was that the provisions should be mandatory in character.

Even if there exists some ambiguity in the language or the same is capable of two interpretations, it is trite the interpretation which serves the object and purport of the Act must be given effect to. In such a case the doctrine of purposive construction should be adopted. (See : : Swedish Match AB and another vs. Securities & Exchange Board, India and another : 2004 (7) Scale 158.) In High Court of Gujarat and another vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and others : (2003) 4 SCC 712 this Court held :-

35. The Court while interpreting the provision of a statute, although, is not entitled to rewrite the statute itself, is not debarred from ironing out the creases. The court should always make an attempt to uphold the rules and interpret the same in such a manner which would make it workable.

36. It is also a well-settled principle of law that an attempt should be made to give effect to each and every word employed in a statute and such interpretation which would render a particular provision redundant or otiose should be avoided.