Published Paper Details:

Judicial Interpretation shapes how the law is interpreted. It Puts the intention of the legislature at the forefronts. The lines between judicial interpretation, judicial activism and judicial overreach are extremely thin. Can the judiciary examine the gaps in the legislature, the answer is a resounding yes, can the judiciary interpret the law in such a way these gapping holes can be filed that is a question that needs some examination. It was thus considered pertinent by the author to discuss the Ritesh Singha v. State of U.P. to answer this question, in this case the supreme court had analysed whether voice samples can be used in criminal investigations when there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Handbook that such practices can be permitted. It is interesting to study how the judiciary has interpreted the law in this case and thus the author has tried to explain judicial interpretation filing up blaring gaps in the legislature through the Ritesh Singha judgment. The author further adds details to this discussion by taking a step further in discussing how the purposive approach helps foster Judicial Interpretation in situations as mentioned in the Ritesh Singha judgment.