Doctrine of Reading down not meant to amend laws but only to mend
The Courts, though, have no power to amend the law by process of interpretation, but do have power to mend it so as to be in conformity with the intendment of the legislature. Doctrine of reading down is one of the principles of interpretation of statute in that process. But when the offending language used by the legislature is clear, precise and unambiguous, violating the relevant provisions in theconstitution, resort cannot be had to the doctrine of reading down to blow life into the void law to save it from unconstitutionality or to confer jurisdiction on the legislature. Similarly it cannot be taken aid of to emasculate the precise, explicit, clear and unambiguous language to confer arbitrary, unbridled and uncanalised power on an employer which is a negation to just, fair and reasonable procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitutionand to direct the authorities to record reasons, unknown or unintended procedure.
 Elliott Ashton Walsh, H v. United States, 398 U.S.333;Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors.,  SCR533 at 544-45; United States v. Wunderlick, 342 U.S. 93;S.C. Jaisinghani v. Union of India,  2 SCR 703; In reHindu Women's Right to Property Act,  FCR, 12; K.N.Singh v. State of Bihar,  Suppl. 2 SCR 769; R.L. Arorav. State of U.P.,  6 SCR 784; Jagdish Pandev v. Chancellor of the Bihar,  1 SCR 231; Amritsar Municipalityv. State of Punjab,  3 SCR 447;Sunil Batra v. DelhiAdmn., 4 SCC 494; N.C. Dalwadi v. State of Gujarat, 3SCC 611; Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India,  Suppl.Scale 1 at p. 61; Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Balbir
Saran Goel,  3 SCR 747; Air India Corporation v.Rebellow,  3 SCR 606 and Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay v. P.S. Malvankar,  3 SCR 1000, referred to. Federal Steam Navigation Co. v. Department of Trade andIndustry,  2 All E.R. 97 at p. 100 and Saints HighSchool, Hyderabad v. Govt. of A. P.,  2 SCR 924, referred to.Craies Statute Law, 7th Ed. Ch. V, P. 64.