Doctrine of Reading Down and Reading In

Before striking down a provision, a court asks whether it can be saved by interpretation. Reading down gives wide words a narrower meaning that keeps the provision within constitutional limits. Reading in implies into a provision a safeguard or element that the Constitution requires but the text omits. Both rest on the presumption that the legislature intended to act constitutionally, and both stop where the words leave no room. This note explains each technique, its leading cases and its limits.

1. Three Ways to Deal with an Invalid Provision

Figure 1: Reading down, reading in and severance

• Basis. The presumption of constitutionality: where a provision can reasonably bear a meaning that keeps it valid, the court adopts that meaning (Topic 19)
• Preference. Courts prefer to save a law by interpretation rather than strike it down, so long as the result is faithful to the text and legislative intent.

2. Reading Down

Figure 2: Reading down in the Supreme Court

• RMDC (1957). The Prize Competitions Act, wide enough to cover competitions involving skill, was read down to competitions of a gambling nature and upheld (Topic 31)
• Kedar Nath Singh (1962). Section 124A IPC on sedition was upheld only by reading it down to acts that have a tendency to cause violence or public disorder, so that mere criticism of the Government falls outside it.
• Independent Thought (2017). Exception 2 to s.375 IPC, which excluded intercourse by a man with his wife from rape, was read down so that it does not apply where the wife is between 15 and 18 years of age.
• Navtej Singh Johar (2018). Section 377 IPC was read down to exclude consensual sexual acts between adults, which were held protected by Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.

3. Limits of Reading Down

• Clear words. Reading down is not available where the language is clear and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning.
• DTC Mazdoor Congress (1990). A regulation allowing the termination of permanent employees without reasons was challenged. The majority refused to read it down, holding that doing so would rewrite the provision, and struck it down as arbitrary; the dissent would have read it down.
• No judicial legislation. Reading down must not produce a provision different from what the legislature enacted (Topic 11)

4. Reading In

• Meaning. The court implies into a provision a requirement that the Constitution demands, such as a hearing, reasons or a limiting condition.
• Maneka Gandhi (1978). Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, permitting impounding of a passport without a hearing, was saved by reading into it the requirement of natural justice, so that a hearing must be given, if not before, then promptly after the order.
• Natural justice generally. Where a statute is silent, courts read in the principles of natural justice unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication.
• Limit. Reading in is used sparingly and only where the implied term is consistent with the statutory scheme.

5. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the doctrine of reading down?

It is the technique by which a court gives a provision of wide amplitude a narrower meaning so as to keep it within constitutional limits, instead of striking it down. It rests on the presumption that the legislature intended to act constitutionally. In Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962) the Supreme Court upheld the sedition provision by reading it down to acts tending to cause violence or public disorder.

When can a court not read down a provision?

Where the words are clear and admit of only one meaning, or where reading down would amount to rewriting the provision. In Delhi Transport Corporation v DTC Mazdoor Congress (1990) the majority refused to read down a regulation permitting termination without reasons and struck it down instead.

What is reading in?

Reading in is the implication into a provision of a safeguard or requirement that the Constitution demands but the text omits. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) the Supreme Court saved the power to impound passports by reading into it the requirement of a hearing in accordance with natural justice.

6. Related Topics

• Topic 31: Doctrine of Severability. Striking out the invalid part.
• Topic 19: Presumptions in Interpretation. The presumption of constitutionality.