Article 14 claim to extend exemption notification based on others' wrong exemptions rejected; illegal parity cannot be demanded

The dominant issue was whether a claimant could invoke Article 14 to demand extension of an exemption notification merely because similar exemption had been wrongly granted to others. The SC held that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate illegality: an unsustainable or illegal benefit conferred by erroneous orders cannot constitute a valid comparator or foundation for alleging discrimination, and correct orders need not be withheld to maintain parity. Relying on prior SC authority, the Court disapproved the contrary approach and held that the earlier view suggesting such parity was not good law. Consequently, the exemption benefit was denied and the SLP was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Recall of order due to judgment of another Bench
2. Application of Article 14 in granting relief

Recall of order due to judgment of another Bench:
The petition for special leave was initially dismissed by a Bench of two Judges but was later recalled in light of a judgment by another Bench in a similar matter. The recall was deemed necessary to remove ambiguity on the question of law by a judgment of a 3-Judge Bench. The Court heard the parties and noted that the judgment in the similar matter did not differ on the merits of the case.

Application of Article 14 in granting relief:
The Court granted relief in the similar matter based on Article 14 to prevent discrimination against the appellant. However, it was argued that Article 14 should not be invoked to perpetuate wrong orders issued in favor of others. The principle of equality under Article 14 does not apply when the order relied upon is unsustainable in law and is illegal. Therefore, the benefit of exemption notification cannot be extended to the petitioner based on incorrect extensions to others. The decision in the similar matter was deemed not to lay down the correct law on this point.

In conclusion, the special leave petition was dismissed based on the above considerations.

---