Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras 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