जे.पी.बन्सल वि. राजस्थान सरकार (२००१) च्या सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या निकालाच्या परिच्छेद १४ आणि १६ मध्ये न्यायालय म्हणते : " जेथे शब्द स्पष्ट आहेत, दुर्बोधता नाही, कायदेमंडळाचा उद्देश सुस्पष्ट आहे, त्या ठिकाणी न्याययंत्रणेस नवे पायंडे पाडण्यास किंवा संवैधानिक तरतुदी बदलण्यास वाव नाही...... हे खरे आहे की या कोर्टास (सर्वोच्च न्यायालयास) घटनेतील तरतुदींचा अर्थ लावताना स्वातंत्र्य प्राप्त होते तेवढे कायद्याचे अर्थ करताना प्राप्त होत नाही.
- (म्हणजे, भारतीय राज्यघटनेतील अनुच्छेद २१ चा अर्थ करताना जेवढे स्वातंत्र्य न्याययंत्रणा घेईल, कदाचित प्रताधिकार कायदा १९५७ च्या तरतुदींचा अर्थ लावताना तेवढे स्वातंत्र्य घेऊन अर्थ लावले जाणार नाहीत. असा याचा अर्थ होतो असे आपणास वाटते का ?)
- Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions...." उर्वरीत भाग आणि संदर्भ अधिक माहिती मध्ये पहा.
अधिक माहिती आणि संदर्भ
- मार्च २००३च्या J.P. Bansal vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 12 March, 2003 केस आपण वाचली आहे का ?
- २०११ मध्ये निकाल दिलेली Super Cassettes Industries ... vs Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors ह्या कॉपीराइट विषयक केसमध्ये J.P. Bansal vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr[१] चे परिच्चेद उधृत केले आहेत :
- परिच्छेद १४: "Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the Judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so". (See: Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in "Essays on Jurisprudence", Columbia Law Review, P.51.) It is true that this Court in interpreting the Constitution enjoys a freedom which is not available in interpreting a statute and, therefore, it will be useful at this stage to reproduce what Lord Diplock said in Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs (1980 (1) ALL ER 529, at p. 542):
- परिच्छेद १५: "It endangers continued public confidence in the political impartiality of the judiciary, which is essential to the continuance of the rule of law, if Judges, under the guise of interpretation, provide their own preferred amendments to statutes which experience of their operation has shown to have had consequences that members of the court before whom the matter comes consider to be injurious to public interest."
- परिच्छेद १६: Where, therefore, the "language" is clear, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. What is to be borne in mind is as to what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said. A construction which requires, for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words, has to be avoided, unless it is covered by the rule of exception, including that of necessity, which is not the case here. (See: Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests (AIR 1990 SC 1747 at p. 1752); Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corpn. (AIR 1966 SC 1678 at p. 1682); A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984 (2) SCC 500, at pp. 518, 519)]. Indeed, the Court cannot reframe the legislation as it has no power to legislate. [See State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese (1986 (4) SCC 746, at p. 749); Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96 at p.101) The decision in Dr. L.P. Agarwal (supra) is also of no assistance to the appellant because the issues involved was whether in respect of tenure post concept of superannuation is applicable and the consequences of premature retirement. In that context direction was given for payment of arrears of salary etc. The issues were entirely different and, therefore, that decision has no application."
- सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने भारतीय राज्यघटनेतील अनुच्छेद २१ चा माहितीच्या अधिकारासंदर्भात विस्तार केला आहे पण असा विस्तार करणारे सर्वोच्च न्यायालय, कायद्याचे अर्थ लावताना नवीन कायदा बनवण्याची मुलत: संसदेची असलेली जबाबदारी न अंगिकारण्या बद्दल दक्ष आहे असे आपणास वाटते का ?
- केसेस वाचताना कायद्यात अमेंडमेंट केव्हा आणि काय झाल्या आणि अद्ययावत न्यायालयीन निकाल केव्हा आणि कोणते यांबांबीकडे लक्ष देताय ना ?
- आपल्या मतांची शंकांची विकिपीडिया चर्चा:(छाया)चित्र, माध्यम संचिकांचे प्रताधिकार, उचित वापर अपवाद, परीघ आणि जोखीम येथे चर्चा करा.
- Indian Copyright Law हा लेख इंग्रजी विकिस्रोत प्रकल्पात अभ्यासताना (तो अचानक अयोग्य पद्धतीने बदलला गेलेला नाही हे लेख इतिहास तपासून खात्री करा;) मूळ कायदा दस्तएवजांसोबत अचूकते साठी पडताळून घ्या. बेअर ॲक्ट वाचून झाल्या नंतर संबंधीत कलमांचा उल्लेख झालेले न्यायालयीन निकालही वाचून घेणे सयुक्तीक असू शकते हे लक्षात घ्या.
