Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
“(d) Departure from the rule
In discharging its interpretative function, the Court can
correct obvious drafting errors and so in suitable cases “the court
will add words, or omit words or substitute words”. But “before
interpreting a statute in this way the Court must be abundantly sure
of three matters : (1) the intended purpose of the statute or
provision in question, (2) that by inadvertence the draftsman and
Parliament failed to give effect to that purpose in the provision in
question; and (3) the substance of the provision Parliament would have
made, although not necessarily the precise words Parliament would have
used, had the error in the Bill been noticed.” Sometimes even when
these conditions are satisfied, the court may find itself inhibited
from interpreting the statutory provision in accordance with
underlying intention of Parliament, e.g. when the alteration in
language is too far reaching or too big or when the subject matter
calls for strict interpretation such as a penal provision.” (See Inco
Europe Ltd. v. First Choice Distribution (a firm) (2000) 2 ALL ER 109,
p.115 (HL)”
(Emphasis added)