Legal Context and Case Overview
The doctrine of negative discrimination was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2025). The Court, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal, invoked Article 14 of the Constitution of India to underline the illegality of practices that favor some individuals arbitrarily, thereby resulting in unfair denial of equal treatment to others.
Case Background
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Petitioner | Jyostnamayee Mishra |
| Employment | Appointed as a peon in 1978 under the Odisha Government |
| Claim | Sought promotion to “Tracer” post based on training completed in 1997 |
| State’s Action | Repeated denial of her promotion citing procedural and recruitment hurdles |
| Judicial Journey | Case escalated from the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP) |
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
| Category | Findings |
|---|---|
| Procedural Lapses | Irregularities in recruitment process and statutory documentation |
| State’s Conduct | Lack of diligence and repeated errors in defending its position |
| Promotion Criteria | Affirmed that the Tracer post was to be filled solely via direct recruitment |
| No Precedent from Illegality | Past illegal appointments could not be used to justify present claims |
Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality
Article 14 embodies two fundamental principles:
- Equality before law (British origin)
- Equal protection of laws (American origin)
These principles ensure:
- No arbitrary discrimination by the State
- Uniform application of laws to all individuals
- Special provisions are allowed only if reasonable classification is justified
What is Negative Discrimination?
Negative discrimination refers to unjust denial of opportunities to certain individuals based on arbitrary or past illegal practices, even when such individuals have a legitimate claim under law or merit.
In simpler terms: It is discrimination not by direct bias, but by denying benefits or promotions through flawed procedures or unjustified precedence.
Visual Representation: Positive v. Negative Discrimination
Here’s the visual representation of Positive Action vs. Negative Discrimination in a clear, reader-friendly table format (not code):
Visual Representation: Positive v. Negative Discrimination
| Positive Action | Negative Discrimination |
|---|---|
| Promotes equality by supporting underrepresented groups | Denies fair treatment based on flawed procedures or bias |
| Constitutionally enabled by Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) | Violates Article 14 which ensures equality before the law |
| Based on reasonable classification with legitimate purpose | Stems from arbitrary or illegal precedents |
| Seeks to correct historic injustices | Perpetuates inequality through administrative unfairness |
| Example: SC/ST or OBC reservations in education and jobs | Example: Denying promotion despite merit, citing old illegal norms |
Legal Principle Laid Down
The Supreme Court clarified:
- Equality does not mean sameness, but fair treatment under valid legal frameworks.
- Past administrative errors cannot become the benchmark for future promotions or appointments.
- State authorities must adopt transparent, consistent, and lawful procedures in employment-related decisions.
Conclusion
The judgment in Jyostnamayee Mishra serves as a crucial reminder that negative discrimination, though often subtle, is equally violative of constitutional mandates. It reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to uphold substantive equality and calls for systemic reforms in governance and public administration.
