Nobody Can Claim Under
In the realm of constitutional law in India, the principle of equality stands as a cornerstone. guarantees and . However, a common misconception arises: can individuals claim —that is, demand the same illegal or irregular benefits granted to others? The resounding answer from is no. Nobody can claim as a right. This blog delves into this vital legal doctrine, supported by landmark judgments, to clarify its implications for litigants, policymakers, and the public.
Understanding the Legal Question: Nobody Can Claim
The question at the heart of this discussion is straightforward yet profound: Nobody can Claim . This stems from the interpretation of , which embodies a positive concept of equality. It mandates treating equals equally but does not extend to enforcing wrongs or irregularities simply because they occurred in favor of others.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that allowing such claims would perpetuate illegality and erode the . As articulated in 2006 6 Supreme 372, The concept of equality as envisaged under of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. (Para 17) 2006 6 Supreme 372
This principle ensures that justice is not diluted by repeating errors.
The Doctrine of Positive vs.
Core Principle Under
promotes , ensuring fair treatment where legally entitled. , conversely, involves invoking parity based on unlawful acts—a notion firmly rejected by the judiciary.
In 2010 4 Supreme 546, the held: of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. (Para 17) 2010 4 Supreme 546
Similarly, 2010 4 Supreme 546 reinforces: The concept of equal treatment on the logic of of the , 1950 (in short the Constitution) cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. (Para 28) 2010 4 Supreme 546
Rejection in Practice: Key Illustrations
In 2010 4 Supreme 546, the Court clarified: In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court... held that of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. The said provision does not envisage . A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. (Para 16) 2010 4 Supreme 546
These rulings establish that illegal benefits or irregularities cannot form the basis for demanding parity, as it would undermine constitutional mandates.
Insights from Additional Judicial Precedents
This doctrine echoes across diverse contexts, from service matters to admissions and evictions.
In a dispute 2022 4 Supreme 188, the quashed tribunal orders applying erroneous equality: There cannot be any claim of in such cases. Even otherwise, merely because some other officers involved in the incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against other officers cannot be a ground to set aside the order of punishment when the charges against individual concerned - are held to be proved in a departmental enquiry. 2022 4 Supreme 188
Similarly, in educational qualifications 2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 746, courts refused to direct appointments lacking required degrees, noting it would contradict regulations and constitutional schemes. The principle was invoked: Thus, it is submitted that it is a well-settled law that none can claim . 2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 746
In medical admissions 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1914, regularization of NEET-non-compliant entries was denied: It is well settled that the right to equality is a positive right and can not entail claim of in the sense that if an illegality has been done, it is not for the court to perpetuate it. 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1914
Even in eviction cases under the 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 443, arguments for were dismissed: Moreover, no can be claimed in law. 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 443
A ruling
reiterated: More so, it is also settled legal proposition that does not envisage for .
Notably, while some cases like 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 16 address by striking gender-biased rules under (e.g., denying identity cards to married daughters), they align by promoting genuine equality, not extending wrongs.
In 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 515, the Court affirmed: It is settled that cannot be claimed as there is no concept of . 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 515
No Exceptions to the Rule
Across reviewed precedents, no exceptions permit claims. Courts consistently prioritize legality over misguided parity, safeguarding public interest.
Key Takeaways and Practical Implications
- Focus on Positive Rights: Litigants should argue based on lawful entitlements, not others' irregularities.
- Perpetuating Illegality is Barred: Courts will not extend wrongful benefits to maintain equity.
- Role of Judiciary: Reinforces by distinguishing valid from invalid claims.
In summary, 's equality is a shield for the rightful, not a sword for the wrongful. This principle, upheld in cases like 2006 6 Supreme 372 2010 4 Supreme 546, ensures systemic integrity.
This post provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
#NegativeEquality #Article14 #IndianConstitution
