New Delhi: Stop the Constitutional Court from completing or changing words in the provisions of the law while interpreting, the Supreme Court on Tuesday says that the language and compilation of laws or rules are in a single legislative domain, where the justice is prohibited from stepping in.
A Judge Dy Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna said, “The court in the implementation of the judicial review cannot replace the provisions of the provision through judicial interpretations by rewriting legal language.
Anger is a function entrusted in the legislature.
Work on the court side cannot violate into the legislative domain with rewrite the laws Cipta, Bench said HC could not rewrite the provisions related to the progress of the royalty payment for the song copyright holder, it was also in a temporary order, when the petition challenged the rules awaiting the final consideration before that.
Describing clear demarcation in the legislative functional domain and justice, Bench said, “The court is entrusted by the Constitution with the power of a judicial review.
In the disposal of its mandate, the court can evaluate the validity of the law or rules made below it.
A law can be canceled if it is canceled Ultra Vires Constitutional Guarantee or Beyond the Legislative Domain entrusted to the legislature imposed.
Delegated legislation can, if it resulted in constitutional violations or contrary to the Ambit of the law enactedly invalid.
“However, the bench said that it was not permitted for HCS and SC to enter the legislative handling arena.
“It is precisely what the division bench from the High Court conducted by temporary commands.
Part 31D (2) talks about the need to provide prior notice, in a way that can be prescribed, from the intention to broadcast work stating the duration and coverage of territorial broadcasts, along with payment Royalties by the way and at the rates that are repaired by Appellate boards.
While the High Court has held the announcer to prior notification requirements, it has modified the 29 rule operation by specifying that the information will be complemented in the notification can be equipped within fifteen days after broadcast.
While changing the second provisions into ‘routine procedures’ instead of exceptions (because the High Court has described its direction), “said the bench.
“This exercise by the High Court amounts to re-writing.
The judicial training exercises such as justice or delegated legislation cannot be done.
The High Court has done it at the interlokutory stage,” Judge Chandrachud and Nagarathna said.
It is said as the implementation of rules rules 29 (4) is unreasonable, especially at the interlokutory stage.
“The difficulties that have been revealed before HC by the announcer have guaranteed this issue of this problem and this court has been convinced by the copyright owner that they will submit information on their conscription immediately so as to facilitate the disposal of the process,” it said.
“It has been guaranteed, we have the view that the court training rewrites the rule of law is not reasoned in the implementation of jurisdiction based on Article 226 of the Constitution, especially in the interocutory process.
HC also believes that the second provision can be used as a routine problem, not as an exception and that ex post facto reports It must be enlarged to 15 days (instead of a period of twenty-four hours).
Such exercises are not permitted because they will replace the legal rules made in the implementation of legislative strengths delegated by the regime and new provisions that HC is considered more practical, “Bench said.
Allows the attraction of Saregama and set aside the order of August 2 HC, SC said, “This, however, is subject to clarification that this court has not stated any opinion about the benefits of rival submissions that will fall in determining the HC Writ Jurisdiction in the delayed process.”
SC / HCS cannot replace the legislative draft with its own craft: SC
