CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that in case of any ambiguity in the words used by the legislature in enactment of a statute, the court would not go to its aide to correct the same.
HC has also held that the “legislature has to be interpreted in the manner to understand its true spirit and the intention of the legislature has to be read in the manner it is written”.
Justice Raj Mohan Singh passed these orders while deciding an issue if the controversial Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim, convicted under 120-B (criminal conspiracy) in murder cases, would be a hardcore prisoner as per the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act 2013. The Act says only those convicted for murder under section 302 IPC twice in different FIRs would be hardcore prisoner for the purpose of release on parole or furlough.
“It would be relevant to note that if there is an ambiguity or an omission in words used by the legislature, the authority or court would not go to its aid to correct the same. The scope and remedy lies somewhere else, when the provision itself is challenged or under interpretation of status. To understand in true spirit, the intention of the legislature, the reading should be together from the words which are used,” observed the judge.
The judge clarified that in certain enactments and policies, the legislature in its wisdom has included Section 120-B IPC in heinous crime, for example in the guidelines for Premature Release Policy, 2013 framed by the government of Punjab while giving definition of heinous crime, section 120-B IPC is specifically mentioned along with section 302 of IPC. In case of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act 2013, the words used are distinct and have to be read in the manner as suggested by the legislature.
The HC clarified that had the intention of legislature been to include aiding offence under section 120-B IPC for the purpose of defining hardcore prisoner, the language of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act 2013 would have been different altogether.
“Cases of section 120-B IPC are consciously excluded and the legislature was very much alive to the situation, in which section 120-B IPC has been excluded. The words used in an Act cannot be used or interpreted loosely and inappropriately, rather the same are to be given true meaning, importance and are to be correctly and exactly used. Sub-section 8 of section 2(aa) (i) of the the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Amendment Act 2013 used for serial killing i. e. murder under section 302 IPC in two or more cases in different FIRs would make it clear that except section 302 IPC, no other section has been given any place, nor has the same been discussed by the legislature in its sub-section,” observed the judge.
‘Word conspirator could also have been used’
On the other hand, words used ‘serial killing’ or ‘contract killing’ have been used to make it more clear for the execution that the persons who are actually committing murder should be put under the category of hardcore prisoner. If we read sub-section (9) of section 2(aa)(i) where with offence under Section 302 IPC, the word contract killer has been used by the legislature. If contract killer can be interpreted, then the word conspirator could also have been used by the legislature in the language of sub-section (8) along with section 302 IPC or with serial killer, but the same has not been used by the legislature.
