Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Negative equality - The concept of negative equality is not recognized under Article 14 of the Constitution; it is a positive concept that guarantees equal treatment before law but does not permit enforcement in a negative manner (e.g., claiming parity to perpetuate illegality) ["2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 161"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 590"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4712"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1262"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1183"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 1193"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 678"], ["AVTAR SINGH & OTHERS Vs DIRCTOR GENRAL OF POLICE & OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2637"].
Positive vs. negative equality - The courts have consistently held that Article 14 envisions a positive concept of equality, ensuring equal opportunities and treatment in like circumstances, but does not support negative equality, which would involve enforcing equality by negating lawful distinctions or perpetuating illegalities ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 590"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1262"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 678"].
Legal implications - Allowing claims based on negative equality could perpetuate illegality and undermine lawful distinctions, which is not permissible under constitutional law. The courts emphasize that equality cannot be claimed in illegality or to enforce unlawful benefits ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 590"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(PH) 1193"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2637"].
Judicial stance - Courts have repeatedly clarified that neither Article 14 nor Article 226 empowers courts or citizens to enforce negative equality claims. Any such claim must demonstrate discrimination or denial of a just and legal right; mere similarity in circumstances does not entitle one to equal benefits if the rights do not exist or have not been lawfully extended ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4712"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 16"], ["AVTAR SINGH & OTHERS Vs DIRCTOR GENRAL OF POLICE & OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Conclusion - The prevailing legal doctrine firmly establishes that Nobody can claim negative equality because Article 14 guarantees only positive equality, and enforcing negative equality would conflict with legal principles and constitutional protections ["2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 161"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 590"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 678"].
Summary:The legal consensus is clear that negative equality is not recognized under Indian constitutional law. Article 14 guarantees a positive concept of equality, ensuring equal treatment in like circumstances, but does not support claims based on negative equality, which involve enforcing equality by negating lawful distinctions or perpetuating illegality. Courts have consistently upheld that equality cannot be claimed in illegality, and any assertion of negative equality is not sustainable under the Constitution.
In the realm of constitutional law, the principle of equality stands as a cornerstone. Yet, a common misconception arises: can you demand the same treatment as someone who benefited from an illegal or irregular decision? The resounding answer from Indian courts is no. Nobody can claim . This doctrine, rooted in , ensures that equality is a , not a shield for wrongdoing.
This blog post delves into the legal principle that nobody can claim , drawing from authoritative judgments and related cases. We'll break down the concept, key rulings, and practical implications, helping you navigate this vital area of law. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Article 14 guarantees and . However, courts have clarified it has only a positive aspect. It promotes equal treatment where rights legitimately exist but does not extend to —claiming benefits because others received them through error, illegality, or irregularity.
As stated in a key judgment: there is no concept of under Article 14.
This prevents the . Simply put, if an authority grants a wrongful benefit to one party, others cannot demand the same under equality grounds. Doing so would mean two wrongs do not make a right.
The has consistently upheld this principle across diverse cases, from land acquisition to service matters.
In this case, the Court explicitly ruled: 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. This underscores that illegal benefits aren't claimable rights.
Here, the Court reinforced: a wrong order or illegal benefit to one doesn't justify similar treatment for others. Two wrongs do not make a right, preventing the cycle of illegality.
Benefits extended irregularly cannot be claimed by others on equality grounds, as it would perpetuate illegality. The judgment emphasizes Article 14's positive nature.
This doctrine extends beyond isolated cases, appearing in service law, education, and more.
In a disciplinary proceeding, the quashed a 's order setting aside punishment based on . It held: There cannot be any claim of in such cases. Even if other officers escaped action, proven charges against one stand. The role of each individual must be assessed independently. The matter was remanded for fresh enquiry, highlighting courts' refusal to apply .
In teacher recruitment, courts rejected claims for appointments lacking required qualifications like B.P.Ed., citing Regulations. It is a well-settled law that none can claim . Relaxing rules for some doesn't entitle others; it violates constitutional and regulatory schemes.
Admission to MBBS without NEET was invalidated. The Court noted: It is well settled that the right to equality is a 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. Even diplomatic recommendations couldn't override rules.
echo this. In a Punjab Haryana case: Article 14 does not envisage for .
Similarly, in railway eviction disputes, no can be claimed in law. 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 443
Article 14 permits for legitimate purposes. However, it never justifies illegality or fraud. Claims invoking equality to perpetuate wrongs are typically dismissed.
The principle that nobody can claim safeguards the integrity of India's legal system. rulings like Basawaraj
, Gursharan Singh
, and others firmly reject perpetuating illegality under Article 14. This ensures equality serves justice, not injustice.
Key Takeaways:- Article 14 is positive: equal treatment for valid rights only.- No legal right from others' illegal benefits.- Courts prioritize legality over misguided equality claims.
Stay informed on constitutional principles to strengthen your legal position. For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
References:1.
- No concept.2.
- Two wrongs don't make right.3.
- Positive aspect of Article 14.4.
- No .5. Additional cases: 2022 4 Supreme 188, 2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 746, 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1914,
, 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 443. #NegativeEquality, #Article14, #SupremeCourtIndia
The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Further, it is trite law that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms. 10. ... They would further submit that right to equality is not in negative terms and no negative equality can be claim....
If such a claim is allowed, it would amounts to perpetuate illegality, as illegality cannot be perpetrated on the ground of equality. ... It is settled law that equality, cannot be claimed in illegality. 13. As the claim of equality and parity to those persons who have been granted benefit not in accordance with the law, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. ... State of Rajasthan and others, report....
Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. ... It is further submitted that negative equality is not permissible. Any appointment to the post of Junior Engineer on compassionate ground made illegally, would not entitle petitioner to claim appointment under t....
This guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. ... The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. ... As held in the above-referred decisions, equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept and canno....
negative equality. ... In view of above, the stand so taken by the respondent No.2 that the petitioners are not entitled to claim negative equality is not at all sustainable. ... The said provision does not envisage negative equality, but, has only a positive aspect. ... Without there being any such admission that it had committed mistake, the respondent No.2 cannot #HL....
Re: Plea of negative equality raised at instance of an unsuccessful candidate 11. ... The petitioner has further sought to assert his claim as a successful candidate by invoking the doctrine of negative equality, predicating his entitlement upon the perceived infirmities in the candidature of the respondents No.5 and 6. ... Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality#HL....
The wife of the deceased and the mother of the daughters has nobody else to look to for support, financially and otherwise in her old age. ... The mother has nobody to look forward to except the petitioner daughter. The petitioner has asserted that even after her marriage she is looking after her mother in her old age. ... Under the quota of ex-servicemen, either the ex-servicemen themselves can claim the quota or in their absence, the ward....
A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. ... The said provision does not envisage negative equality 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. ... The question which remains fo....
More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. ... More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. ... The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. ... The said provision does not envisage negative equal....
In our opinion, there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. ... Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and it cannot be used to perpetuate any illegality. ... The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Longia v. State of Punjab [D.S. Longia v. State of Punjab, 1992 SCC OnLine P&H 1027 : AIR 1993 P&H 54] , in view of the settled legal propos....
State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532. Thus, it is submitted that it is a wellsettled law that none can claim negative equality.
Learned counsel for the Railways further argues that the argument of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained in law since there was reasonable classification in categorizing the particular types of persons who would be labelled as 'unauthorized occupants' for the purpose of the impugned notice. Moreover, no negative equality can be claimed in law. Hence, such argument of the petitioner, it is contended, is negated.
Therefore, both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by applying the Doctrine of Equality. There cannot be any claim of negative equality 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....
Concept of equality before law, what is permissible not as to what is impermissible. It is settled that negative equality cannot be claimed as there is no concept of negative equality. We hope it was the first and the last occasion that the Judges have gone to press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by internal mechanism, particularly, when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer Judges.
It is well settled that the right to equality is a positive right and can not entail claim of negative equality in the sense that if an illegality has been done, it is not for the court to perpetuate it in the exercise of its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction. No doubt the admission of Ms. Mashal, citizen of Pakistan, and Ms. Riecha Joshi, citizen of Nepal, appears to have been on the recommendation of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India for purported reasons of diplomatic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
