Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. We may note, at this stage, that the shortfalls and lack of lucidity in the statute do not constitute casus omissus, i.e., ‘a case of omission’. It is well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to apply the doctrine of casus omissus where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous as the words used by the statue speak for themselves and it is not the function of the Court to add words or expressions merely to suit what the Court thinks is the intent of the legislature [See S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India10]. As pointed out by a Constitution Bench in Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta11, while interpreting a statute, effort should be made 10 (1994) 3 SCC 1 11 (2005) 2 SCC 271 to give effect to each and every word used by the legislature and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature should not be accepted except for compelling reasons, such as obvious drafting errors. However, in a situation where it is not an instance of casus omissus by the draftsman of the legislation and there are ample means to gather the clear intention of the lawmakers, the statutory provisions which are seemingly lacking in clarity, but are actually not so, can be synchronized so as to give effect to the legislation as intended, without the Court venturing into the realm of legislative drafting. Such an exercise would only require harmonious construction of the provisions so as to give full effect to the legislation.