Krishnan & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2008,
decided on May 7, 2013
Followings
case laws were noted in respect of reading down of the provisions contained in
legislation:
Union
of India & Ors. v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited, (2011) 4 SCC 635,
wherein the Court observed:
“19. This Court has repeatedly laid down that in the garb of
reading down a provision it is not open to read words and expressions not found
in the provision/statute and thus venture into a kind of judicial legislation.
It is also held by this Court that the rule of reading down is to be used for
the limited purpose of making a particular provision workable and to bring it
in harmony with other provisions of the statute.”
Sardar
Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853, the Court
while dealing with the people of Bohra community, while interpreting the
provisions of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and dealing with the
particular Act held as under:
“It is not possible in the definition of
excommunication which the Act carries, to read down the Act so as to confine
excommunication as a punishment of offences which are unrelated to the practice
of the religion which do not touch and concern the very existence of the faith
of the denomination as such. Such an exclusion cannot be achieved except by
rewriting the section.
To see the full text follow the link: