Does law depends on one's own interpretation?Courts of law hear the arguments from both sides, examines the documents, and deliver the judgment in a case before it. If one of the parties feels aggrieved, they go to the higher court. We find many cases where the judgment differs from one court to the other. I read about a case where a businessman was arrested and he applied for bail. The court dismissed his bail application saying that he is funding a terror organization. He approached Supreme Court for bail. The Supreme Court granted him bail saying that he was only paying extortion money but not funding the terror organization. The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire material on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.
We find that the High Court and the Supreme Court applied their mind in a different manner and the judgment differed. Had the accused not approached the Supreme Court, he might be in jail until the case is settled. Does it mean that the judgment depends on how the material placed before it is interpreted?