http://www.indianexpress.com/news/law-must-prevail-over-equity-sc/765326/2Law must prevail over equity: SC
Agencies Posted online: Mon Mar 21 2011, 16:56 hrs
New Delhi : The Supreme Court has ruled that law should prevail over
equity and that judges should not legislate as it would be violative
of the basic democratic principles.
A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra in a recent
judgement said courts should not interpret rules on the basis of
equity.
"In other words, once we depart from the literal rule, then any number
of interpretations can be put to a statutory provision, each judge
having a free play to put his own interpretation as he likes.
"This would be destructive of judicial discipline, and also the basic
principle in a democracy that it is not for the judge to legislate as
that is the task of elected representatives of the people. Even if the
literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to
be followed," the bench said.
The apex court passed the ruling while setting aside a May 23, 2006
judgement of a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court which on the basis
of principles of equity upheld the promotion of general category
candidates for the post of Block Development Officer (BDOs).
The dispute related to inter se seniority for the post of BDOs between
the general category candidates and petitioner Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates.
The apex court said, "The Full Bench and single judge have relied on
equity, justice and good conscience, rather than law. We are of the
opinion that this approach is incorrect. When there is a conflict
between law and equity, it is the law which is to prevail.
"Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it
cannot supplant the law. In the present case, Rule 27(c) clearly makes
the appellants senior to the respondents as the advice for their
appointments were made prior to that for the respondents," the bench
said.
According to Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services
Rules, seniority is to be determined "by the date of first effective
advice made by the Public Service Commission to the State Government
for appointment.
In the present case for the appellants B Premanand and other SC/ST
candidates the said advice for appointment was made by the Kerala
Public Service Commission on July 8, 1992 and they joined between July
13, 1992 and October 22,1992.
Whereas, "advice" for the general category candidates was made on
April 6, 1993 and they were appointed as BDOs on September 28, 1993
and they joined between October 6,1993 and November 17, 1993.
However, the Full Bench of the High Court ruled in favour of the
general category candidates vis-a-vis seniority on the ground that
their original selection was much prior to the SC/ST candidates.
The apex court said that Rule 27(c) of the rules was plain and clear,
hence, the literal rule of interpretation would apply to it.
"No doubt, equity may be in favour of the respondents because they
were selected earlier, but as observed earlier, if there is a conflict
between equity and the law, it is the law which must prevail. The law,
which is contained in Rule 27(c), is clearly in favour of the
appellants," the bench said.
In this context, the bench recalled the ancient "Mimansa Rules of
Interpretation," which, it said, were regrettably hardly ever used in
our law courts.
"It may be mentioned that it is not stated anywhere in the
Constitution of India that only Maxwell's Principles of Interpretation
can be utilised. We can utilise any system of interpretation which can
help to resolve a difficulty."
"According to the Mimansa principles, the Shruti (literal meaning)
will prevail over the Linga (suggestive power)," the bench said.
It said where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and
unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of
interpretation other than the literal rule.
"The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the
legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no
mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said.
"Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the
legislature, the court cannot correct or make up the deficiency," it
said.
The apex court said a departure from the literal rule should only be
done in very rare cases, and ordinarily there should be judicial
restraint in this connection.
"In other words, the literal rule of interpretation simply means that
we mean what we say and we say what we mean.
If we do not follow the literal rule of interpretation, social life
will become impossible, and we will not understand each other. Life
will become impossible," the bench added.
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
