The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a promotion order for a Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) scientist, ruling that courts cannot add words to a statute and that assessment committees of domain experts must be given requisite discretion in evaluating scientists' performance.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan allowed an appeal filed by the Director General of CSIR and others against a high court order that had directed the promotion of the scientist. The top court emphasized that the assessment committee, comprising domain experts, must have the freedom to evaluate scientists based on their work reports.
Court's observation on judicial overreach
“Can’t add words to statute,” the bench observed, underscoring that judicial interpretation cannot expand the scope of statutory provisions. The court noted that the high court had erred by substituting its own judgment for that of the expert committee.
The scientist in question had approached the high court after being denied promotion, arguing that his performance was satisfactory. The high court had directed CSIR to promote him, which was challenged by the CSIR Director General in the Supreme Court.
Expert committee's role upheld
The Supreme Court stressed that the assessment committee of domain experts is best placed to evaluate the performance of scientists based on their work reports. “Such committees must be given requisite discretion,” the bench said, adding that courts should not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or malafide.
The ruling reinforces the principle that courts should defer to expert bodies in technical matters. The bench set aside the high court's order and restored the decision of the CSIR assessment committee.
Implications for scientific institutions
The judgment has significant implications for scientific institutions, as it upholds the autonomy of expert panels in personnel matters. Legal experts said the ruling reiterates that courts cannot rewrite statutory rules or add conditions not provided by the legislature.
The case highlights the delicate balance between judicial review and administrative discretion. The Supreme Court's decision ensures that domain experts continue to play a pivotal role in evaluating scientific talent, without undue interference from courts.
