Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Add Words to Statutes While Interpreting Law; Sets Aside CAT, Karnataka HC Orders

The Supreme Court has reiterated that courts cannot ordinarily add words to a statutory provision while interpreting it, as it set aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court directing the promotion of a scientist after misconstruing the applicable rules.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, however, clarified that there are limited exceptions to this principle, such as where words appear to have been accidentally omitted by necessary implication or where, without reading in certain words, the provision would lose its meaning.

"Words may also be read to give effect to the intention of the Legislature which is apparent from the Act read as a whole," the Bench said.

The case arose from an appeal filed by the Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), challenging the CAT and high court directions regarding the promotion of scientist Anil Earnest to the post of Senior Scientist.

Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the CAT and high court?

The dispute centred on the interpretation of Paragraph 3(b) of a CSIR circular dated June 1, 2011, which governs the assessment process for promotions.

The respondent claimed he became eligible for promotion on September 19, 2012, but was promoted only with effect from September 19, 2015, following the recommendation of the Assessment Committee on October 30, 2018.

He argued that Paragraph 3(b) required the Assessment Committee to consider both the Annual Performance Reports/Performance Mapping Scheme (APR/PMS) scores and the Work Report. Since his Work Report had been awarded 82% and his PMS score exceeded 90%, averaging the two would take his score above the 85% benchmark required for promotion. On this basis, he contended that the CAT and the high court were justified in directing his earlier promotion.

CSIR, however, argued that the 82% awarded by the Assessment Committee reflected its overall assessment after considering the Work Report and that the rules did not require averaging of APR/PMS and Work Report scores to determine eligibility.

Assessment Committee has discretion under promotion rules

After examining the 2001 Rules, the 2011 Circular and a 2017 Office Memorandum, the Supreme Court agreed with CSIR's interpretation.

Court noted that the 2017 Office Memorandum makes it clear that the Assessment Committee evaluates scientists primarily on the basis of their Work Reports and is free to devise its own objective method for assessing a candidate's suitability and merit.

The Bench observed that it was undisputed that Paragraph 3(b) required the Assessment Committee to consider both the APR/PMS and the Work Report. However, the provision does not prescribe how marks are to be awarded or require averaging of the two scores.

"In the present case, the Assessment Committee had considered the 'Work Report' of the respondent, and upon assessment awarded 82% marks which are below the threshold i.e., 85% marks required for recommendation for promotion," Court noted.

Rejecting the interpretation adopted by the CAT and the high court, the Bench said:

"We are afraid that such a view is not borne out from Para 3(b). What Para 3(b) requires is a consideration of APRs/PMS and the 'Work Report' of the period concerned. As to what marks are to be awarded upon such consideration is not provided for in Para 3(b), and therefore, it falls within the domain of the Assessment Committee which comprises domain experts."

Court held that the view taken by the CAT and the high court effectively amounted to adding words into the rule by requiring the Assessment Committee to average the APR/PMS and Work Report scores.

"The view taken by CAT and the high court that the Assessment Committee would have to award average/mean of the marks of APRs/PMS and the 'Work Report' to determine whether the candidate is above or below the threshold, in our view, amounts to adding words to a provision," the Bench said.

Importance of Work Report in scientist promotions

The Supreme Court also emphasised that the Work Report carries significant importance in assessing scientists.

It observed that the weight to be attached to a Work Report depends on the nature of the research undertaken. A scientist engaged in complex research may not always produce results comparable to someone working on a less complex subject.

In such situations, the Bench said, the Assessment Committee, comprising domain experts under the 2001 Rules, must be given adequate discretion to decide whether a scientist has performed well enough to be considered fit for promotion.

Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the rule would become arbitrary if averaging was not adopted.

According to the Bench, Paragraph 3(b) itself provides sufficient guidance by requiring the Assessment Committee to consider both the APR/PMS and the Work Report while assessing suitability. The question of how much weight should be given to each factor is best left to the Assessment Committee.

Court further noted that there were no allegations of mala fides against any member of the Assessment Committee. It also observed that the respondent was eventually found suitable for promotion and that there was no substantial challenge to the validity of Paragraph 3(b) of the 2011 Circular.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the CAT and the Karnataka High Court.

Case Title: Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Ors Vs Anil Earnest 

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan 

Date of Judgment: July 10, 2026