This paper aims at analyzing the judgment of the Supreme Court of India keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by the welfare provisions, viz., Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Nandlal acase, the Court deviated from the law. The Apex Court remarked ‘Truth must triumph,’ which is the hallmark of justice, unwittingly bastardizing an innocent girl, which is untenable. The Court was anxious to render justice, bypassing a deserving girl and her mother and ruling in favor of an ‘undeserving’ man, deviating from the law. The Court also obviously overruled its precedents which are binding on it.b The Court also failed to invoke purposive rule c of interpretation. The Court must have restrained itself from the deviation as it was done in the Naaz Foundation case. d The Court must have invoked the example of Badshah vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse ecase. This paper attempts to delineate the provisions and the rationale and the reasoning given by the Courts in treating the law as a means to render justice.

…Then was born the Law (Dharma), the doer of good. By the law the weak could control the strong. – Brihadaranyakopanishad1

…When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which is to prevail. Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant the law….”

Satyam Sarve Pratisthtam is an old saying saying of ancient and cultural significance. And, there are certain provisions of law such as Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, drafted by the eminent jurist Sir James Stephen, to render protective justice to vulnerable persons like women and child. The provision reads in effect that during the continuance of a valid marriage, if a child is born, the child is presumed legitimate. The presumption extends to 280 days beyond the nullification of marriage. The provision disallows bastardization of child. The strong presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act has been ignored by the Supreme Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik’s case.3 The Apex Court has obviously ignored the law and deviated from the tendency of liberal and purposive rule of construction as has aptly been adopted in Badshah case.4

Law Review Journal, Hallmark of Justice, Truth, Law, Naaz Foundation, Urmila Badshah Godse, Satyam Sarve Pratisthtam, Code of Criminal Procedure.