https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196907 The Supreme Court of India's interpretation of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 confines "child" to a person below eighteen years of age and rejects expansion to include an adult's mental age. The statutory text is clear and exhaustive, and the Act's scheme consistently uses chronological age while separately referring to mental disability where intended. Purposive interpretation may advance legislative intent, but it cannot add words omitted by Parliament. The protective object of the Act does not justify rewriting the definition, which remains limited to biological age below eighteen years. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196907 The Supreme Court of India's interpretation of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 confines "child" to a person below eighteen years of age and rejects expansion to include an adult's mental age. The statutory text is clear and exhaustive, and the Act's scheme consistently uses chronological age while separately referring to mental disability where intended. Purposive interpretation may advance legislative intent, but it cannot add words omitted by Parliament. The protective object of the Act does not justify rewriting the definition, which remains limited to biological age below eighteen years. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196907