The Proviso II / The Revival of Ray XVI

In Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, (1976) 1 SCC 128 this Court held:

“A proviso must be limited to the subject-matter of the enacting clause. It is a settled rule of construction, a proviso must prima facie be read and considered in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not a separate or independent enactment.

“Words are dependent on the principal enacting words to which they are tacked as a proviso. They cannot be read as divorced from their context” [Thompson v. Dibdin, 1912 AC 533].

A proviso ordinarily is but a proviso, although the golden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such manner they mutually throw light on each other and result in a harmonious construction.

A proviso cannot be used to nullify or set at naught the substantive provision contained in the main enactment.”

Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Delhi Development Authority v. Virender Lal Bahri, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 37375 of 2016].


My Lord, Judges in Dwarka Prasad, (1976) 1 SCC 128?

Four. Hon’ble Judges K.K. Mathew, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.R. Krishna Iyer; Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray.

My Lord, Gujarat Ambuja, (2005) 4 SCC 214 quoted Dwarka Prasad?


My Lord, Gujarat Ambuja?




The construction or interpretation of a proviso could be discussed as gathered from: Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula v. Motibhai Nagjibhai, AIR 1966 SC 459; Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980; Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 12; Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 915; S. Sundaram Pilla v. V.R. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582.

The approach to construction and interpretation of a proviso is enunciated in: M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1107 and Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to Govt. of West Bengal v. Abani Maity, AIR 1979 SC 1029.

Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, [Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022] decided on 12.05.2022.