“It needs no special emphasis to mention that provisos can serve various purposes. The normal function is to qualify something enacted therein but for the said proviso would fall within the purview of the enactment. It is in the nature of exception. Hidayatullah, J had observed that a proviso is generally added to an enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment, and the proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule. Further, except for instances dealt with in the proviso, the same should not be used for interpreting the main provision/enactment, so as to exclude something by implication. It is by nature of an addendum or dealing with a subject matter which is foreign to the main enactment. Provisos should not be normally construed as nullifying the enactment or as taking away completely a right conferred.”
– Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra, M/s. CASIO India Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [Civil Appeal No. 1411 of 2007].
Also see, Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 4810 of 2021] decided on 13.09.2021 and National Highways Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar, [Civil Appeal No. 11141 of 2018] decided on 23.09.2021 and Adani Gas Limited v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28192-28193 of 2018] decided on 28.09.2021.