Though the Rule of Casus Omissus i.e. “what has not been provided for in the statute cannot be supplied by Courts” is a strict rule of interpretation there are certain well known exceptions thereto. The following opinion of Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949) 2 All ER 155 should be taken note of:

“English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much the poorer if it were. He (The Judge) must set to work in the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, and he must do this not only from the language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it, and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give “force and life” to the intention of Legislature. A Judge should ask himself the question, how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.”

In Magor & St. Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation, (1950) 2 All ER 1226 Learned Judge restated the above principles in a somewhat different form to the following effect: “We 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 enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis.”

Though the above observations of Lord Denning had invited sharp criticism in his own country we find reference to the same and implicit approval thereof in the judicial quest to define the expression ‘industry’ in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213. Paragraphs 147 and 148 of the opinion of Chief Justice M.H. Beg in Bangalore Water Supply would clearly indicate the acceptance of Court.

See, CBI, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli, (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1077-1081 of 2013) decided on 23.02.2016.

Also, Was the Death of the Casus Omissus Rule ‘Undignified’? (30 Statute Law Review 73).

_____

There are certain exceptions to Rule of Casus Omissus i.e. “what has not been provided for in the statute cannot be supplied by Courts”. Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 87 throws light. Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa, (2008) 9 SCC 284 to be considered. Also, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788.

– Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3033 of 2024] decided on 07.05.2024.

_____

“True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which are not there, but “where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply the words”” [Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 87]. Also see, Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284; Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24; Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 473.

There was an anomalous situation in the language of Section 25(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 between 15.03.2003 and 20.07.2020. We place on record our sincere appreciation for valuable assistance rendered by Shri R. Venkataramani, Learned Attorney General for India and Shri Jaideep Gupta, Learned Senior Counsel, and their team of Lawyers, including Ms. Jharna and Mr. Shubham Singh Bhadouriya, Law Clerks-cum-Research Associate, for assisting this Court to arrive at a conclusion which may resolve the anomalous situation.

– Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s. Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, [Civil Appeal Nos. 5536-5538 of 2025] decided on 22.08.2025.

_____

It is well settled, it is not permissible for Court to apply Doctrine of Casus Omissus where language of a statute is clear and unambiguous as words used by statue speak for themselves and it is not Court’s function to add words or expressions merely to suit what Court thinks is intent of Legislature [S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1].

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6238 of 2024] decided on 28.10.2025.