Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Court cannot usurp the function of the legislature:- It is not open to the court to usurp the functions of the legislature . Nor is to open to the courts to place unnatural interpretation on the language used by the legislature and impute to it an intention which cannot be inferred from the language used by it, by basing itself on ideas derived from other laws. Mangi Lal v. Sugam Chand , AIR 196 SC 101. Intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used in the Act. M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishana Sinha , AIR 1959 SC 395. 22.Later Act when to be used to interpret an earlier.- Except as a parliamentary exposition , subsequent Acts are not to be relied on as aid to the construction of prior unambiguous Act. A later statute may not be referred to , to interpret the clear terms of an ealier Act, which the later Act does not amend even though both Acts are to be construed as one, unless the later Act expressly interpret the earlier Act, but if the earlier Act is ambiguous, the later Act may throw light on it, as where a particular construction of the earlier Act. will render 8 Haryana [S. 1] the later incorporated act ineffectual. An Act of Parliament does not alter the law by merely betraying an erroneous opinion of it . Nalnikant Mody v. I.T Commissioner Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 193; (1966) SCR 401. To the same effect the observations made earlier by the Supreme Court of India in Shiv Shankar Shukla v. A.D Divekar , 1957 SCR 121 at p . 140.