DOCTRINE OF READING DOWN
It is well established principle of interpretation that ‘where the words of an Act are clear, there is no need for applying any of the principles of interpretation’ .The presumptions are to be applied in the case of ambiguity in the statute. The safer and more correct course of dealing with the question of construction is to take the words at their face value meaning without in the first place refer to cases. Where an ambiguity arises to supposed intention of the legislature, one of the statutory constructions, the court prDoofounded is the doctrine of reading down. Lord Reid in Federal Steam Navigation Co. v. Department of Trade and Industry,[1] (as also extracted by Cross -Statutory Interpretation, Butterworths' Edition, 1976 at page 43 in preposition 3) has stated thus:
"the judge may read in words which he considers to be necessarily implied by words which are already in the statute and he has a limited power to add to, alter or ignore statutory words in order to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd or totally unreasonable, unworkable, or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute."
It is hazardous for a Court to attempt to enforce what according to it is the moral value. Before embarking on the mission of "closing the gap between the law and morality and bring about as near an approximation between the two as possible", it is necessary for the Court to understand clearly its limitations. The power of the Court to legislate is strictly limited. "Judges ought to remember that their office is jus dicere and not jus dare to interpret the law, and not to make law or give law[2]".
The golden rule of statutory construction which is repeated here for the sake of reference is that the words and phrases or sentences should be interpreted according to the intent of the legislature that passed the Act. All the provisions should be read together. If the words of the statutes are in themselves precise and unambiguous, the words, or phrases or sentences themselves alone do, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words or phrases or sentences in their natural and ordinary sense. But if any doubt arises from the terms employed by the legislature, it is always safe means of collecting the intention, to call in aid the ground and cause of making the statute, and have recourse to the preamble, which is a key to open the minds of the makers of the statute and the mischiefs which the Act intends to redress. In determining the meaning of statute the first question to ask always is: what is the natural or ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context. It is only when that meaning leads to some result which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the intent of the legislature, then it is proper to look for some other possible meaning and the court cannot go further.
The courts, by its very nature, are most ill suited to undertake the task of legislating. There is no machinery for the Court to ascertain the condition of the people and their requirements and to make laws that would be most appropriate. Further two judges may think that a particular law would, be desirable to meet the requirements whereas another two judges may most profoundly differ from the conclusions arrived at by two judges[3].
No comments:
Post a Comment