Parity-Based Relief

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta in the case of Damor Nanabhai Manabhai & Ors v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (2026) held that parity-based relief cannot be claimed after prolonged delay merely because similarly situated employees have succeeded, as such claims would reopen settled issues and undermine the principle of finality in litigation. 

What was the Background of Damor Nanabhai Manabhai & Ors v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The tribunal had earlier directed the reinstatement of the petitioners. 
• This tribunal decision was set aside by the State Government in exercise of its review power under Section 24(4) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. 
• The state government's decision was upheld by the High Court. 
• The High Court's decision remained undisturbed by the Supreme Court in 2014, thereby settling the matter. 
• In 2021, the Gujarat High Court passed an order in a different case directing the competent authority to consider a representation regarding higher grade pay scales of a teacher who was still in service. 
• The petitioners in the present case were not parties to the 2021 case. 
• The instant Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the petitioners relying on the Gujarat High Court's 2021 order. 
• The petitioners sought similar directions from the Supreme Court, contending that the benefit of the 2021 order should be extended to them on the ground of parity. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 
• The Court noted that since the issue concerning the petitioners was settled in 2014, it was not open for them to re-agitate the same after a long delay. 
• The Court emphasized that those who seek to claim benefits after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief. 
• The Court stated that before issuing a direction for "consideration" without examining the merits, courts must first satisfy themselves that the claim relates to a live issue. 
• The Court held that if the claim pertains to a stale or dead issue, the court must put an end to the matter rather than enable avoidable, successive rounds of litigation. 
• The Court referred to the principle established in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015), which states that while a court order in favour of a set of persons may be extended to others who are identically situated, this is subject to recognized exceptions including delay, laches and acquiescence. 
• The Court also noted that the petitioners were not similarly situated to the persons who were parties to the High Court's 2021 order. 
• The Court observed that the person in the 2021 case was still in service, whereas the petitioners' service matters had been conclusively determined in 2014. 

Counsels Should Discourage Filing on Stale Claims: 

• To curb the filing of litigation founded on stale claims, the Court advised counsel to discourage clients from pursuing relief based on subsequent developments. 
• The Court warned that such attempts would undermine the principle of finality and encourage the reopening of concluded disputes. 
• The Court stated that learned counsel are expected to assist the Court by placing the full procedural history with clarity. 
• Counsel should draw attention to orders which have attained finality and to binding precedent bearing on delay, laches, and maintainability. 
• The Court emphasized that counsel should, in appropriate cases, advise litigants against pursuing repetitive proceedings which, in substance, seek to reopen concluded issues. 
• The Court noted that this is essential to preserve judicial time and to maintain the discipline of finality that the justice delivery system requires. 

What is Parity Relief? 

Definition:  

Parity relief is a principle of fairness derived from Article 14 of the Constitution, allowing an accused to seek bail or a litigant to seek service benefits based on similar relief previously granted to a similarly situated person. 

Key Principles: 

• Not an Absolute Right: Parity is a factor in seeking relief, not a guaranteed ground. Courts must assess individual circumstances before granting relief.
• Criminal Cases (Bail): 
  • Bail based on parity is not automatic. 
  • Requires strict comparison of specific roles played by co-accused in the crime. 
  • Similarity in charges or involvement alone is insufficient. 
  • A person who committed a more severe act cannot claim parity with someone who played a minor role, even in the same case. 
• Service Matters: 
  • Litigants cannot claim similar relief based on previous judgments if they have delayed approaching the court for a long time.  
  • Courts prevent reopening of concluded cases. 
  • Subject to exceptions including delay, laches, and acquiescence. 
• Legal Basis:  
  • Rooted in the principle of equality before law (Article 14), ensuring similar situations are treated alike, but subject to recognized exceptions and individual assessment. 
• Core Principle:  
  • Parity is a consideration in seeking relief but does not guarantee it without examining individual circumstances and applicable exceptions. 

What is Article 14 of the COI? 

Article 14 - Right to Equality: 

• Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India. 
• The provision prohibits arbitrary discrimination and ensures that similar cases are treated similarly. 
• Gender-based denial of inheritance rights constitutes a violation of Article 14 as there is no rational basis for such discrimination. 
• The Court held that there is no rationale in allowing inheritance only to the male heirs when no prohibitive custom exists.