Laws Cannot Be Applied Mechanically; Justice Needs Human, Not AI, Interpretation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that courts must balance textual fidelity with interpretive wisdom, ensuring that laws are not applied mechanically without regard to context or equity, but operate as genuine instruments of justice.

“This court is of the view that human beings, and not artificial intelligence or computers, are entrusted with the duties of administration of justice as laws are to be interpreted with empathy and pragmatism and as a force of justice, not absurdity,” a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan observed.

Court noted that while courts cannot refuse to give effect to legislation merely because its clear meaning appears absurd, when they are required to construe a provision whose meaning is debatable, they will lean against an interpretation that produces an absurd or unjust result. The bench added that the more absurd a suggested construction appears, the more readily the court will reject it, whether the provision in question arises from a statute or a contract.

The judges also underscored that a judgment cannot be read like a statute or enactment.

The Supreme Court was examining whether appellants-landlords, during the pendency of appeals under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 before the Rent Control Appellate Court challenging an eviction order passed under Section 12(3), were required to once again invoke the procedure under Section 12 by filing an application under Section 12(1). “However, at the deeper level, the issue that arises for consideration is whether laws are to be interpreted as a force for justice or not,” the bench said.

The dispute involved two shops in the heart of Kochi, Kerala, taken on monthly rent by the respondent-tenant. The appellants-landlords said that while the monthly rents were Rs 55,000 and Rs 99,187 respectively during the relevant period, the tenant had not paid rent for one shop since February 2020 and for the other since January 2020. They filed two eviction petitions and a recovery suit.

Against the eviction orders passed on November 7, 2024 under Section 12(3), the tenant filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 18. After the tenant failed to deposit rent within the stipulated time, the Appellate Authority passed orders on March 19, 2025 stopping the hearing of the appeals and directing compliance with the eviction orders.

The tenant challenged these orders in revision petitions before the High Court, which allowed the petitions. The landlords argued before the Supreme Court that the total arrears exceeded Rs 1.45 crore and that the Appellate Authority’s orders were correct and had been erroneously set aside by the High Court. The tenant contended that the High Court had merely directed disposal of the appeals while allowing the landlords to invoke Section 12 again if necessary.

Examining the statutory scheme, the bench said Section 12(1) specifically bars a tenant from contesting an eviction petition or appeal unless he deposits all admitted arrears and continues to pay accruing rent. Under Section 12(3), failure to deposit rent without sufficient cause empowers the court to stop proceedings and order eviction, and since eviction under Section 12(3) operates by force of law, the landlord need not even file a separate eviction application.

Court rejected the tenant’s submission that a fresh Section 12(1) application is mandatory in an appeal against an eviction order under Section 12(3), calling it contrary to the express language of Sections 12 and 18. “This court is of the view that Sections 12(1) and 12(3) procedure is to be primarily followed by the Rent Controller,” the bench said, adding that only where supervening events arise during the pendency of the appeal, such as further rent becoming due, would the parties have the liberty to file a fresh Section 12 application before the appellate authority.

If the High Court’s reasoning were accepted, the bench said, it would lead to absurd and unjust results and defeat the summary nature of the eviction mechanism. Accepting such an interpretation would “turn the summary procedure on its head” and delay eviction of an “intransigent and recalcitrant tenant.”

Court noted that the tenant had been occupying two prime commercial shops in Kochi “without paying a farthing” for more than five years despite an existing money decree and without any stay in appeal. Though Sections 11 and 12 of the Act provide for a summary process to evict tenants who fail to pay rent without sufficient cause, the tenant had “by advancing procedural arguments” overturned the scheme and continued occupying the premises without paying rent.

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Appellate Authority’s order, the Supreme Court directed the tenant to hand over vacant physical possession of the shops to the landlords on or before December 31, 2025, provided he files an undertaking within two weeks to pay outstanding arrears and deliver peaceful possession. Failure to file the undertaking would entitle the landlords to execute the eviction decree.

Case Title: P U Sidhique & Ors Vs Zakariya

Judgment Date: November 21, 2025

Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan