Equality before law

  1. An employer cannot adapt different treatment with its employees because it is the fundamental right of every person to be treated equally. Azad Government & 2 others v. Syed Tayyab Gilani & 14 others 2009 SCR 415 (E) 2002 SCMR 82 rel.
  2. The principle of equality before law was primarily introduced, firmly adapted and practiced by Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (May Allah peace be upon him) much before Magna-Carta — Last Sermon of Holy Prophet (May Allah peace be upon him) is landmark in the history of world and mankind. Azad Government & others v. Syed Tayyab Gilani & others 2009 SCR 415 (D)
  3. Held: The case of the appellant appears to be clearly one of discrimination, not acceptable at law — The time-tested principle or a saying ‘‘what is good for the goose is also good for the gender’’ and ‘‘all State subjects enjoy the equal protection ‘‘of law’’, which in fact, is a right recognized by the supreme law. Muhammad Younas v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2010 SCR 271 (C)
  4. Fundamental right No.15 of AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — All the State subjects are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law — Even an Act passed by the Legislative Assembly when found inconsistent with this right has been struck down by the superior Courts. Azad Govt. & another v. Raja Muhammad Nasab Khan and 20 others 2011 SCR 257 (C)
  5. No prescribed policy for transfer and posting of civil servants holding the field — Question whether the competent authorities have got unguided and uncontrolled powers of posting and transfer. Held: In absence of any prescribed policy all the authorities are under constitutional obligation to exercise their powers in judicious manner by upholding the principle of equality before law. Mst. Sabia Aziz v. Director Technical Education & 5 others 2011 SCR 545 (G)
  6. Meaning thereof — fundamental right — equality for supremacy of law or in illegalities — contention — argument regarding equality before law is concerned, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, equality does not mean equality in the illegalities and violation of law, it means equality in good sense for supremacy of law and upholding the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. Held: Any wrong act cannot be justified for doing another wrong act or perpetuate the same. If such practices are recognized, it will amount to defeat the vary purpose of legislation and supremacy of law. Further held: if the respondents have regularized or permanently inducted some persons against law, that cannot be a reason for accepting the appeals or protecting their illegal acts. Farkhanda Jabeen v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1362 (A)
  7.  Principle — equality among equals — not in violation of reasonable classification — the principle of equality before law has to be applied among the equals and not in violation of the reasonable classification or the provision of statutory law. Azad Govt. v. Sr. M. Mukhtar Khan 2016 SCR 206 (G)
  8.  Principle — equality among equals — base for sustenance of system — if applied without reasonable classification — system shall collapse — it is celebrated principle of law that the principle of equality before law shall apply among the equals otherwise, the whole system shall collapse. If the equal treatment of law is applied without legal condition, it means that everyone has right to claim occupation of any office or demand for any type of terms and conditions without any restrictions imposed by law. Azad Govt. v. Sardar M. Mukhtar Khan 2016 SCR 206 (H) 
  9. —Writ Petition—Resident Medical Officers and Demonstrators—Uniform Salary Package—Increase in salary of both above categories of medical personnel was proposed–Despite the fact, increase only in salary of demonstrators was made—The Supreme Court held that RMOs, respondents were treated discriminately. Both the Demonstrators and RMOs possess equal qualification i.e. MBBS and practically their nature of job is also same. Both are entitled to equal treatment under law. The High Court rightly accepted the writ petition of the respondents.  Azad Govt. & others v. Dr. Khalid & others 2019 SCR 493 (A)
  10. — Existing positions not to stand in course of law–discrimination/categorization in application of law is prohibited in Islam—-Hadeeth of the Holy Prophet(PBUH) quoted in this regard—Under law, all the persons apart from their positions, are equal before law; moreover, any categorization in this regard is strictly prohibited in Islam. The Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) while addressing to His companions (R.A) said that ‘O people, those who have gone before you were destroyed, because if any one of high rank committed theft amongst them, they spared him; and if any one of low rank committed theft, they inflicted the prescribed punishment upon him. By Allah, if Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, I would have her hand cut off’.  A clear principle has been laid down that in the affairs of justice, special treatment cannot be given to anybody due to his/her high position.  Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (B) Sahih Muslim Haith No. 4410 rel
  11. —equal treatment under law—up-gradation of post-calligrapher—discrimination cannot be exerted while up-gradation of posts—Held: as the other posts of the same nomenclature have been up-graded in various other departments the respondent is also entitled to the same treatment under law and there is no justification to refuse him the relief, which has been given to the similarly placed other people. Secretary Council of Islamic Ideology & others v. Syed Hamid Ali Bukhari & 2 others 2020 SCR 642 (A)
  12.  —different modes of examination for students studying LLB 3 years (external) Program and LLB students of the  semester system—conventional mode of examination for former students and online examination for later ones—discrimination alleged by the petitioners—reasonable classification—Held: the question of discrimination can be considered where the persons claiming discrimination are placed in similar situation. Muhammad Rashad Sulehria & 7 others v.  University of AJ&K & 2 others 2020 SCR 770 (A)
  13. —Right No. 15—Matriculate and under-matric police constables performing same functions—they are entitled to same pay and privileges—under law no one can be discriminated— the law of equality is based on what is good for the goose is also good for gander. Naseen Ahmed & 16 others  v. Inspector General of Police 2022 SCR 476 (C)
  14. —Right No.15—retrospective promotion—notification dated 15.5.2009 was given effect from 1.7.2009— after acceptance of appeal, respondents were entitled to the promotion w.e.f. from 1.7.2009, the date when the counterparts serving in certain departments were granted the promotion—respondents cannot be deprived of the legal vested right of promotion in the garb of financial crunch—Right No.15 guarantees equal treatment and equal protection of law—like persons are to be treated alike. Azad Govt. & others v. Zia Ullah & others 2022 SCR 527 (A & B) 2011 SCR 257 rel    
  15. — concept of — fundamental right No.15 — fundamental right to equality does not imply equality in illegal actions — it signifies equality in a lawful sense — concept of equality before law underscores that individuals should be treated equally and justly under the legal system — this principle does not extend to justify or legitimize an unlawful and illegal action — it does not promote equality in wrong doing — it emphasize the importance of equality in lawful sense, wherein all individual are subject to the same legal standards and enjoy the same legal protection to ensure the supremacy of law. Azad Govt. & others versus Fiaz Ahmed & others 2023 SCR 796 (F)
  16. — fundamental right No.15 — concept & analogy of — right to equality does not imply equality in illegal actions or the violation of law — it signifies equality in a lawful sense, with a focus on upholding supremacy of law and safeguarding fundamental rights — the concept of equality before law underscores that individually should be treated equally and justly under the legal system — this principle does not extend to justify or legitimize an unlawful  and illegal action — it does not promote equality in wrongdoing — it emphasizes equality in the lawful sense — Syed Shafqat Hussain Naqvi versus Azad Govt. & 04 others 2023 SCR 616 (B)
error: Content is protected !!