सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने तरुण कुमार बनाम सहायक निदेशक प्रवर्तन निदेशालय मामले में निर्णय दिया कि समता के सिद्धांत (principle of parity) के आधार पर जमानत (bail) प्रदान करने के लिए आरोपी की भूमिका पर विचार करना आवश्यक है, और अनुच्छेद 14 (Article 14) का उपयोग किसी पूर्व गलत या अवैध आदेश को दोहराने के लिए नहीं किया जा सकता।
On November 20, 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which rejected the bail application of the petitioner charged with offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was arrested in connection with a money laundering case on June 22, 2022. During the court proceedings, the appellant argued that since other co-accused in a similar situation had been granted bail then he should also be entitled to the bail. While hearing the Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement case, the two-judge bench of the SC rejected the appellant’s plea for bail on the grounds of parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail in a money laundering case. It stated that the application of the principle of parity requires consideration of the roles played by the accused.
Further, the SC bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed, “It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favor of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.”