Bench: K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra The Doctrine of Equality enshrined in the Constitution of India states that equals should be treated equally and hence all those who are placed equally should be treated alike. The Supreme Court of India observed that this principle equally applies to all those persons who were found guilty in a crime. The Supreme Court of India in Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P and Ors in Civil Appeal No.1334 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2070 of 2012) on Wednesday pronounced that the Doctrine of Equality applies to not just all those persons who are equally placed but also to all those persons who have been found guilty in a crime.
The Apex court relying on various Supreme Court judgments observed that the persons who have been found guilty in crime can also claim equality of treatment among the co-delinquents on the establishment of discrimination done at the time of imposition of punishment. The apex court observed that Parity among the co-delinquents has to be maintained when the punishment is being imposed and harsher punishment cannot be imposed to one person to comparison to other person. The Court said that the punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who were parties to the same transaction or incident. The Court said that Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate that is punishment which is less for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. The Apex Court in the present case allowed the appeal and ordered reinstatement of the Appellants in the service with all the benefits at par with what was provided to the other co-delinquent in the case. The appellant had filed this petition against the order of High court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant was dismissed from the Police service on account of misconduct of taking bribery and co-delinquent AP who had actually demanded and took the bribe was awarded only with the punishment of compulsory retirement and was in fact later re-instated in the police service with benefits. The appellant had contested this punishment imposed on him in relation to this fact in the courts below. The inquiry report on the basis of which punishment was imposed suggested that AP (a co-delinquent) had actively participated in the incident and the appellant was only found guilty of tacit (unspoken) approval to the incident. The counsel for the Appellants contended that the charges levelled against appellants were not fully proved and inquiry report also clearly established that AP was guilty of taking bribe and submitted before the court that in spite of establishment of this fact, AP was imposed with a lighter punishment and the appellant was imposed with a harsher punishment which was clearly arbitrary and discriminatory and thereby sought parity in punishment. The apex court relying on the above enunciated principles concluded that punishment should not be disproportionate and set aside the order of dismissal imposed on the Appellants and ordered reinstatement of the Appellants with same benefits as were provided to the other co-delinquent AP. Thus, the Supreme Court of India laid down a strong precedent that the Doctrine of Equality equally applies to all those who were found guilty and punishment should not be disproportionate comparing the involvement of all co-delinquents who were parties in the same incident.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
