It is, most often, not permissible to read words in a statute which are not there. But, where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication certain 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.
“In Budhan Singh v. Nabi Bux (1970) 2 SCR 10, this Court held that the expression ‘held’ occurring in Section 9 of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act, 1950 must mean ‘lawfully held’ thereby adding the word ‘lawfully’.”
– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Vasant Ganpat Padave v. Anant Mahadev Sawant, [Civil Appeal No. 11774 of 2018].