P.K. Unni vs Nirmala Industries & Ors on 20 February, 1990
Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used
by the legislature the court could not go to its aid to correct or make up
the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it
should be. The court of course adopts a construction which will carry
out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself.
But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is
subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of
instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries (1990) 2 SCC
378, Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi AIR 1965 SC 101, Sri Ram Ram
VIMAL KUMAR
2015.11.20 17:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
9
CWP No.18158 of 2015
Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459, Hira Devi (Smt) v.
District Board, Shahjahanpur AIR 1952 SC 362, Nalinakhya Bysack v.
Shyam Sunder Haldar AIR 1953 SC 148, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, G.
Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam (1972) 3 SCC 717, N.S.
Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai (1972) 2 SCC 594, Union of India v.
Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth (1977) 4 SCC 193 and CST v. Auriaya
Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad (1986) 3 SCC 50. Modifying and
altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise
entitled to under the scheme, will not also come under the principle of
affirmative action adopted by courts sometimes in order to avoid
discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this
case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power."