Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

Judiciary cannot transgress into the domain of policy making by re-writing a statute - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Appeal arises from an interim order dated 2 August 2021 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of petitions.  The writ petitions have been instituted before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 2013. The High Court has directed that no copyrighted work may be broadcast in terms of Rule 29 without issuing a prior notice. Details pertaining to the broadcast, particularly the duration, time slots and the like, including the quantum of royalty payable, must be furnished within 15 days of the broadcast or performance.  Appellants challenge the interim order of the High Court ,on the ground , has the effect of re-writing Rule 29(4) of the Rules framed in pursuance of the provisions of Section 31D and Section 78(2)(CD) of the Copyright Act 1957. Apex court observed that A judge's responsibility is to interpret and apply the law, not to change it to conform to his or her interpretation of what justice requires. A judge may not rewrite a statute, nor may he or she increase or decrease its scope. Interpolation and evisceration must be avoided in construction. The court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is not plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. In the interim order, the High Court has re-written a piece of legislation. Draftsman ship is a function entrusted to the legislature. Craftsmanship on the judicial side cannot transgress into the legislative domain by re-writing the words of a statute. In this case, the court has done so at the interlocutory stage. Supreme court held that an exercise of judicial re-drafting of Rule 29(4) was unwarranted. Accordingly allow the appeals by setting aside the interim order of the High Court dated 2 August 2021. 

September 27, 2021  

Saregama India Limited  Versus  Next Radio Limited & Ors  

Latest Legal News