The court while interpreting a statute cannot legislate as its function is only to expound the law and not to legislate, the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said: “Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent.”
The Bench further said: “The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the court cannot correct or make up [for] the deficiency.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Katju said, “Once we depart from the literal rule, then any number of interpretations can be put to a statutory provision, each Judge having a free play to put his own interpretation as he likes. This would be destructive of judicial discipline, and the basic principle in a democracy that it is not for the Judge to legislate as that is the task of the elected representatives of the people.”
The Bench was of the view that when there was a conflict between law and equity, it was the law which was to prevail. It said: “Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant the law. Even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed.”
The Bench said: “Departure from the literal rule should only be done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should be judicial restraint in this connection and the temptation to do judicial legislation should be eschewed by the courts.”
The dispute in this appeal is about the inter-seniority on the post of Block Development Officer between the general category candidates and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in Kerala as per Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and the Subordinate Services Rules, 1959. While interpreting the Rule, a Single Judge and Full Bench held in favour of the respondents Mohan Koikal and others. The present appeal is directed against this judgment.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench said: “A perusal of the rule shows that seniority is to be determined by the date of first effective advice made by the Public Service Commission to the State government for appointment. Hence, it is obvious from Rule 27(c) of the Rules that the appellants are senior to the private respondents. However, both the learned Single Judge and Full Bench have held in favour of the respondents and we cannot agree with this judgment.”
