Published on: May 07, 2024 11:57 IST
Court- Supreme Court of India
Case- Visitor, AMU v. K.S. Misra- 2007
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that it is a well-settled principle that if a thing is required to be done by a private person within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time-frame, the same will be held to be directory unless the consequences therefor are specified.
It is held that a statutory direction to private individuals should generally be considered as mandatory and that the rule is just the opposite to that which obtains with respect to public officers. It is held that the question as to whether a mandatory or directory construction should be given to a statutory provision may be determined by an expression in the statute itself of the result that shall follow non-compliance with the provision. If there are no consequences of non-compliance are stated in the statute, has been considered as a factor tending towards a directory construction.
13. The problem can be looked from another angle. If the view taken by the High Court that the provision is directory is accepted as correct, it would in effect amount to making the provisions of sub-clause (c) of Statute 61(6)(iv) otiose. In such a case the consequences provided therein that if no option is exercised within the prescribed time-limit, the employee shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the benefits already received by him would never come into play. It is well-settled principle of interpretation of the statute that it is incumbent upon the court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application.
The courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intent is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra