Article 14 Can't Be Invoked To Repeat Illegality Committed In Favour Of Someone : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has stated that a person cannot claim equal treatment based on an illegal benefit conferred to someone else. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be used to perpetuate illegality, the Court said.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih made these observations while rejecting the claim for a compassionate appointment made by a person.

 The petitioner's father died when he was 7 years old in 1997 and applied for compassionate appointment in 2008 after attaining majority. However, the Haryana Government rejected the claim citing the 1999 policy which introduced a three-year limit after an employee's death.

The petitioner raised an argument that many other similarly situated persons were given compassionate appointment despite their applications being time-barred.

Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Masih stated :

"If some wrong benefit has been conferred or some benefit which is contrary to the scheme has been granted, it would not bestow a right upon the others to claim it as a right of equality by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The judgment added that the idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked only to enforce a claim having the sanctity of law and not to perpetuate illegality or irregularity committed in favour of others.

"The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification."

Also from the judgment - Compassionate Appointment Is Not A Vested Right : Supreme Court

Case : Tinku v State of Haryana