Courts Should Refrain From Expressing Value Judgments And Policy Views In Order To Interpret Statutes: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the Courts should refrain from expressing value judgments and policy views in order to interpret statutes.

Statutes are to be read in their plain language and not otherwise, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.

In this case, the land acquisition by KIADB was for two companies viz. M/s MSPL Ltd. and M/s AARESS Iron and Steel Ltd. [AISL is fully owned subsidiary of MSPL]. Allowing writ appeal filed by a land owner, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench) quashed the notifications under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The Apex Court set aside the High Court judgment and the report on the said aspect of the judgment can be read here.

While considering the appeals, the Apex Court bench noted the following observations made in the judgment of the High court.

1. "Though the word 'development' is used, when this word is examined in an objective manner, in an impassionate manner, it is nothing but interference with the existing state of nature and destroying naute !" (P.90­91) "Any industry inevitably creates and causes pollution of the land, air and water…." (P.91)
2. "Unfortunately, by and large,….courts have been pro acquisition and have generally approved or upheld acquisition proceedings in the name of public interest." (P.96)
3. "When examined on such a touchstone and such tests are applied, we find that the present acquisition proceedings cannot stand. The affectation is very adverse and the benefit if at all is a return because of future development of any industry with some potential for employment and may be a little revenue to the State. The affectation to the livelihood and dignified life of thousands of people which is not examined even it is not the focal point, it should be at least be given due attention which it deserved" (P.105)
4. "…..[A]nd with the history of limited companies being too well­known, though the British claim the invention of joint stock company is the genius of English legal mind when the concept is examined from the perception as it prevails in this country and in the society and examine from the ethos of our society, it is nothing short of deception or playing fraud." (P.106)
5.  "A joint stock company is invented only to defraud creditors." (P.106-­107)
6. "Let us not lose our souls in the name of development by depriving land holders of their land holdings." (P.108)

The bench said that the above 'value judgments and policy views' were introduced by the High Court in order to interpret the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 Act and the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002. In this regard, the court observed:

"The Division Bench in the impugned judgment seems to have been swayed by its own philosophy in due deference to the principles of statutory interpretation. The statute is to be read in its plain language."

"It is only as a measure of caution that the said aspect is being taken note of. Such value judgments and policy views are beyond the domain of the Courts. The Courts should refrain itself from expressing value judgments and policy views in order to interpret statutes. Statutes are to be read in their plain language and not otherwise."

The bench referred to following decisions in this regard:

(i) Regina Vs. Barnet London Borough Council; (1983) 1 AII ER 226;

(ii) Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.; (2001) 4 SCC 139 (Para 17)

(iii) D.R. Venkatachalam Vs. Transport Commissioner; (1977) 2 SCC 273 (Para 29)

(iv) Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; (2002) 3 SCC 533 (Para 13);

(v) Harbhajan Singh Vs. Press Council of India; (2002) 3 SCC 722 (Para 11) and

(vi)Unique Butyle Tube Industries Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation; (2003) 2 SCC 455 (Para 12).

The court also added that setting up of industries is part of development. "There has to be a sustainable growth and existence of all facets and, that is why, laws have been framed, cheques and balance have been imposed so that development takes place side by side with the protection and preservation of nature and environment", it said.

Case details

M.S.P.L. LIMITED vs State of Karnataka | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 886 | CA 4678 OF 2021 | 11 October 2022 | Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath 

Headnotes

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ; Section 28(1), 41 -  Power to acquire land beyond development by KIADB - Regulations framed by the Board under Section 41 also contemplates acquiring land for the purpose of allotment to a single company to set up an industry. (Para 37-39)

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ; Sections 1,3,28- Appeal against judgment of Karnataka High Court quashing the notifications for acquisition of land - Allowed - Division Bench committed an error in quashing the acquisition proceedings.

Interpretation of Statutes - The Courts should refrain itself from expressing value judgments and policy views in order to interpret statutes. Statutes are to be read in their plain language and not otherwise. (Para 45)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment