Principle of negative equality

Principle of negative equality

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shripal Vaish v. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. (2009) 4 UPLBEC 3267 held that if a person is not entitled to payment in view of a particular provision, he can not claim parity that under similar circumstances payment is being made to others. The court relied on decision of the apex court in State of Bihar v Kameshwar Prasad Singh AIR 2000 SC 2306 . In Kameshwar Prasad’s case it was held that:

 “ The concept of equality as envisaged under Article  14 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.”  

In this regard the Supreme  Court in  Gursharan Singh  & Ors.  v.  NDMC & Ors.  [1996 (2) SCC 459] held that citizens  have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope  of Article      14  of the Constitution which      guarantees  equality before   law  to all citizens. Benefits  extended  to   some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14  of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court.  The Court observed:

    "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. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue  and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an  illegal order  for  extending similar benefits to others.  Before  a claim  based  on  equality  clause is  upheld, it  must  be established  by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."

    Again in Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v.   Daulat  Mal Jain & Ors.  [1997 (1) SCC 35]      this  Court considered  the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution            and reiterated  its      earlier position regarding the      concept  of equality holding:

    "Suffice  it to hold that the illegal allotment  founded upon  ultra  vires and illegal policy of allotment  made  to some  other persons wrongly, would not form a legal  premise to  ensure  it to the respondent or to repeat or  perpetuate such  illegal  order, nor could it be legalised.   In  other words,            judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate       the illegalities.           Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was  clearly  in error in directing the appellants to  allot the land to the respondents."

    In State  of Haryana & Ors v.  Ram Kumar Mann[1997      (3) SCC 321] this Court observed:

    "The   doctrine  of        discrimination              is  founded    upon existence of an enforceable right.  He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given  the  same relief.  Article 14 would apply  only when invidious   discrimination  is            meted  out  to  equals            and similarly  circumstanced  without  any    rational  basis  or relationship  in that behalf.  The respondent has no  right, whatsoever  and cannot be given the relief wrongly given  to them,  i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation.  The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination.  If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate,  an employee, after committing mis-appropriation of  money,  is dismissed from service and subsequently that order  is  withdrawn and he is reinstated into the  service. Can  a     similarly circumstanced person claim equality  under Section 14 for reinstatement?  The answer is obviously "No". In  a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but  the  wrong order cannot be the foundation for  claiming equality  for  enforcement  of the same order. As  stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle            him  to  the  equality treatment  for            enforcement thereof.  A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right  to  enforce  the wrong order  and  claim  parity  or equality.  Two wrongs can never make a right."