In India is the Judiciary empowered to make reasonable exceptions to a law in a trial?
<p>In case a statute is clearly of General application or doesn't allow affirmative defences, is it still possible for the Judiciary to interpret the law in a way to accommodate exceptional cases ? or would this be against the principles of public policy and their role ?</p>
<p>For example for crimes against women, children and underclasses the law seems to be interpreted very broadly.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container">england-and-wales</a></p>
<p>Absolutely not.  This would be contrary to the principle of the supremacy of parliament.  If it's written in the statute, that's what the law says.</p>
<p><em>However</em> judges do show some flexibility in interpreting the wording of laws.  Furthermore, in the case of crimes, they are also (usually) able to pass a sentence of an &quot;absolute discharge&quot; which means no fine, or prison, or risk of further punishment (but still a criminal record).</p>
<p>Note that it is usually for a crime to have a &quot;without lawful excuse&quot; or similar clause, so the question doesn't arise.</p>

india