Utkal Contractors & Joinery (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 279 lucidly explained, “It is again important to remember, Parliament does not waste its breath unnecessarily. Just as Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expressions, Parliament is also not expected to express itself unnecessarily. Even as Parliament does not use any word without meaning something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for sake of legislation; nor can it be assumed to make pointless legislation. Parliament does not indulge in legislation merely to state what it is unnecessary to state or to do what is already validly done.”

We now move on to a little bit of English grammar. The word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive. The word ‘and’ is normally conjunctive. As explained by Lord Scrutton in Green v. Premier Glynrhonwy Slate Co., (1928) 1 K.B. 561, one does not read ‘or’ as ‘and’ in a statute unless one is obliged, because ‘or’ does not generally mean ‘and’ and ‘and’ does not generally mean ‘or’.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Commissioner, Customs Central Excuse and Service Tax, Patna v. M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 3991 of 2023].