The technique of reading down has been adopted in numerous cases to sustain the validity of the provision. In Jagdish Pandey v. The Chancellor, University of Bihar & Anr.[1], Supreme Court of India made resort to section 4 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1962. It was observed that section 4 so read literally it did appear to give uncanalised powers to the Chancellordo what he liked on the recommendation of the Commission with respect to teachers covered by it. But this Court was of the opinion that the legislature did not intend to give such an arbitrary power to the Chancellor and was of the opinion that s. 4 should be read down and if it is readdown, there was no reason to hold that the legislature was conferring a naked arbitrary power on the Chancellor and that power cannot be struck down ,as discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution[2].
Krishna Iyer, J, speaking for this Court at p. 511, para 34, of the report observed that the Court does not 'rush in' to demolish provisions where judicial endeavour, amelioratively interpretational, may achieve both constitutionality and compassionate resurrection. This salutary strategy, It was also observed that of sustaining the validity of the law and softening its application was of lovely dexterity. The semantic technique of updating the living sense of a dated legislation is, in our view, perfectly legitimate. Semantic readjustments are necessary to obviate a logicidal sequel and a validation-oriented approach becomes the philosophy of statutory construction sometimes[3].
In Charan Lal Sahu & Ors. v. Union of India[4], , at pages 53 and 54, paras101 as well as p. 61, para 114, it was observed thatthis principle of reading down has been adopted in U.S. Supreme Court in several cases.[5]. The principle as enunciated in Rumely's case (supra) has been approved by this Court in Shah & Co. v. State of Maharashtra[6], This principle of reading down or placing limited construction has been adopted by courts in England in deciding the validity of bye-laws and regulations[7].
In the case of Jagdish Pandey v. The Chancellor University of Bihar & Anr., the challenge was to the constitutionality of s. 4 of Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) (Amendment) Act 13 of 1962 as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It has been urged that s. 4 confers uncana- lised powers on the Chancellor without indicating any criterion on the basis of which the power under s. 4 can be exercised. It has been observed that:
" ...... There is no doubt that if one reads s. 4 literally it does appear to give uncanalised powers to the Chancellor to do what he likes on the recommendations of theCommission with respect to teachers covered by it. We do not, however, think that the Legislature intended to give such an arbitrary power to the Chancellor. We are of opinion that s.4 must be read down and if we read it down there is no reason to hold that the legislature was conferring a naked arbitrary power on the Chancellor[8]."
[1] In Jagdish Pandey v. The Chancellor, University of Bihar & Anr., [1968] 1 SCR 23 1, at pages 236-37
[2] [See the observations of this Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors.,.There the constitutionality of s. 30, sub-section (2) and section 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894 was in question.]
[3] Sunil Batra,Ibid[[ Similar observations were made in N.C. Dalwadi v State of Gujarat, (supra). In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors[3]., [1989] 3 SCC 709, this Court upheld the validity of sections 9 and 10 of the Act by reading in several matters by necessary implication in order to sustain the validity of the sections. ]
[4] Charan Lal Sahu & Ors. v. Union of India, [1989] Supp. SCALE 1page53,54
[5] See also United States of America v. Edward A. Rumely, 97 Lawyers Edition 770 at 775
[6] Shah & Co. v. State of Maharashtra, [1967] 3 SCR466 at 477-78.
[7] See Reg. v. Sadlers Co., 10 H.L.C. 404, at 460 and463 and Faramus v. Film Artists Association, 1962 QB 527 at542 The courts must iron out the creases, as saidLord Denning in Seaford Court Estates, [1949] 2 KB 481. This Court has also on numerous occasions followed this practice. See the observations of this Court in M. Pentiah and Ors. v. Veera Mallappa and Ors., [1961] 2 SCR 295; Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewerage Board etc. v. A. Rajappa & Ors., [1978] 3 SCR 207. See also H.M. Seervai's 'Constitutional Law of India', 3rd Edn. Vol. I, pages 119-120.
[8] Jagdish Pandey v. The Chancellor University of Bihar & Anr., [1968] 1 SCR 23 1
No comments:
Post a Comment