In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that individuals are not required to initiate separate legal battles to claim relief already granted to others in similar circumstances against government actions. The ruling came as the Court granted a female Army officer a permanent commission, even though she had not pursued litigation personally.
The bench, led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, emphasized a core legal principle: once a judicial declaration benefits one individual, others in comparable positions are entitled to the same relief automatically.
“When a court declares the law in favor of a citizen against a government action, similarly placed individuals must receive the same benefit without needing to file separate cases,” the judges stated. However, they clarified that exceptions might arise in cases where judgments explicitly limit their applicability or address personal grievances.
The case involved an Army Dental Corps officer who sought parity with peers granted permanent commissions under a policy allowing three attempts to qualify. After a 2013 amendment restricted opportunities, the officer was denied the same chance given to others. While others secured relief through the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the officer, due to personal challenges, could not join the initial litigation and was subsequently excluded.
The Court overturned the AFT’s denial of her claim, concluding that she should have been extended the benefit granted to her peers. The judgment cited earlier rulings in Amrit Lal Berry and K.I. Shephard, reinforcing that penalizing individuals for not litigating is contrary to justice when identical relief has already been affirmed for others.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to equitable justice, ensuring that no individual is disadvantaged simply for not being part of an earlier legal challenge.
