Judicial Generalisation

 

Judicial Generalisation

Bruhaspati Samal

General Secretary

Confederation of Central Govt. Employees and Workers

Odisha State Coordination Committee

Mobile: 9437022669, eMail: samalbruhaspati@gmail.com

The Indian judiciary, known for its independence and commitment to justice, frequently delivers judgments that are meticulously tailored to the specifics of individual cases. However, a significant issue within this legal framework is the inconsistency in applying these judgments to similarly placed individuals, particularly in the context of employees and workers. The current practice often results in situations where individuals in similar circumstances receive different outcomes due to the case-specific nature of judgments. This discrepancy raises concerns about the fairness and uniformity of the legal process, particularly for those who find themselves in comparable situations but are treated differently under the law.

  Judicial generalization refers to the practice of applying a court's ruling more broadly to all similarly placed individuals, rather than restricting it to the specific parties involved in the case. This approach is particularly important in matters concerning employees and workers, where consistent application of legal principles is essential to maintaining fairness. A notable example of judicial generalization in India is the Vishaka case (Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1997). In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India established guidelines to address sexual harassment in the workplace. These guidelines were made applicable to all workplaces across India until specific legislation was enacted, demonstrating how a court order can be extended to protect the rights of a broader group. The Vishaka judgment stands as a powerful example of the judiciary's capacity to generalize a ruling to benefit a larger segment of society.

In contrast, the implementation of the Ranganath Misra Commission's recommendations on reservations for minorities illustrates the challenges of inconsistent application. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which upheld the Mandal Commission’s recommendations for Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations, the extension of similar principles to religious and linguistic minorities has been uneven across different states. This inconsistency underscores the difficulties in generalizing court orders, particularly when they intersect with complex social and political issues.

  The inconsistency in judicial orders has a profound impact on employees and workers, especially those in the public sector. For example, in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that temporary employees performing the same work as regular employees are entitled to equal pay. However, the implementation of this ruling has varied across states and public sector organizations, leading to disparities among similarly placed workers. Daily wage workers have frequently been at the center of legal disputes concerning their rights to regularization and fair wages. The Supreme Court, in the Umadevi Case (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006), ruled that irregular appointments could not be regularized without following due process. However, subsequent judgments, such as State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010), have allowed exceptions under certain conditions. This inconsistency in the application of regularization principles highlights the need for a more generalized approach to ensure that all similarly placed workers are treated equitably.

  One of the more recent examples of a case-specific ruling that has not yet been generalized is the Supreme Court’s judgment on the issue of granting notional increments to employees who retired on June 30th and December 31st. In Union of India v. P. Parmeswaran (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that an employee who retired on June 30th, the day before the annual increment was due, was entitled to the increment notionally, even though they were not in service on July 1st, the date of the increment. This judgment, though providing relief to the petitioner, has not been generalized to apply to all similarly placed retirees. As a result, other employees who retired on the same dates have had to approach the courts individually to claim the same relief, leading to a multiplicity of litigation and inconsistent outcomes. This case exemplifies the need for the generalization of judicial orders to prevent a piecemeal approach to justice.

  To address these challenges, several steps could be taken to promote the generalization of judicial orders. The Supreme Court could issue broader guidelines outlining the circumstances under which judgments should be generalized to apply to similarly placed individuals. These guidelines would help lower courts uniformly apply principles established by higher courts. Moreover, the legislature should work closely with the judiciary to clarify laws and address legislative gaps that often lead to inconsistent judgments. Clear and comprehensive legislation would reduce the need for judicial interpretation and ensure uniformity in the application of court orders. Judicial training and awareness are also crucial in ensuring a consistent understanding of how to apply precedents across different cases. Strengthening the role of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is another vital step. PILs have been instrumental in bringing about systemic changes, and the judiciary should encourage PILs that aim to generalize court orders, particularly in cases affecting large groups of similarly placed individuals. Finally, the creation of a centralized database of all Supreme Court and High Court judgments, accessible to both the public and the judiciary, would facilitate the identification of cases where generalization of orders is necessary. This database would also support the uniform application of judgments across the country, reducing disparities in legal outcomes.

  The Indian judiciary has made significant progress in delivering justice, yet the inconsistency in applying judgments to similarly placed individuals remains a persistent challenge. By generalizing certain court orders, particularly in matters concerning employees and workers, the judiciary can ensure a more equitable and just legal system. The need for consistency and fairness in the application of justice calls for a concerted effort by the judiciary, legislature, and civil society to create a legal framework that treats all similarly placed individuals with the same standard of justice.  

*****