The Calcutta Weekly Notes January 21 1952

In deliveing the judgment the learindd Lord Justice in a vigorous judgment laid down the following proposition : “We 25"xXvi THE CALCUTTA sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of Ministers and carry it out and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enacment than by opening it up to destructive analysis. [...] When the matter went up in appeal to the House of Lords (1951) 2 All E. R. 839 Lord Simonds recorded powerful dissent from the aforesaid prposition : "It is sufficient to say that the general proposition that it is the duty of the Court to find out the itention of Parliament—and not only of Parliament but of Ministers also—cannot by any means be supported. [...] The duty of the Court is to interpret the words that the legislature has used. [...] 2 000 and all Rules granted on such applications." (ii) Renumber the subsequent clauses in the Schedule as clause (2) of the Rule :- "(2) Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution dealing exclusively with criminal matters shall be placed either before the Criminal Bench or before a single Judge taking Revisional Criminal matters according to the subject matter of the applications." PRIN [...] The advantages of specialised treatment are obvious in view of the growth of useless commetaries whose chief merits lie in expasiveness in volumes 1 2 and 3. The plethora of case-laws given in some of the commentaries nowadays instead of helping the readers often work as positive hindrance.