Fairness over formality: HC says technical errors shouldn’t cause unnecessary hardship

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a person who was initially ineligible but acted in good faith without fraudulent intent should not face undue hardship merely due to a technical defect, provided no overriding public interest is harmed. The court asserted that equity must prevail over rigid legal technicalities to prevent disproportionate consequences.

“Where a party, albeit initially ineligible, has acted in good faith and without fraudulent intent, and where no overriding public interest is adversely affected, equity demands that the individual should not be subjected to disproportionate hardship solely on the basis of a technical defect at the inception,” a Division Bench asserted.

Emphasising the writ court’s role as a guardian of justice, the Bench made it clear that judicial intervention was necessary when strict adherence to procedural technicalities resulted in unwarranted hardship. “The writ court must ensure that legal procedures are not used as instruments of rigidity, but rather as vehicles for advancing fairness and mitigating undue hardship. Thus, where a litigant has, in good faith, undertaken significant commitments based on a reasonable expectation of progression, equity mandates a balanced approach that upholds substantive justice while avoiding an unduly harsh application of the law,” the Bench observed.

Referring to the doctrine of proportionality, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel asserted that a rigid application of rules should not undermine the broader principles of fairness and justice. Equity, it added, must temper the enforcement of the law to prevent oppressive outcomes. Citing the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit—that an act of the court shall prejudice no one—the court stressed that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.

“The court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, does not merely function as a mechanical arbiter of legal principles but also as a custodian of justice, obligated to prevent manifest injustice, even in cases where strict legal norms may appear adverse to the petitioner,” the Bench observed.

Drawing on jurisprudential foundations of equity, the court noted that Osborne associated equity with natural justice, while Aristotle regarded it as a correction of law where its universality led to defects. The term equity itself, the Bench pointed out, originates from the Roman concept of aequitas, symbolising fairness and proportionality. The ruling reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is designed to uphold justice in its truest form rather than merely adhere to rigid legal contours.

The assertions came in a case where a candidate was granted admission to a course despite not meeting the mandatory qualification requirements. The key issue before the court was whether the admission was rightly granted and if its subsequent cancellation was justified. After examining the circumstances, the court held that principles of equity demanded a balanced approach rather than an inflexible application of eligibility norms. The Bench quashed the order cancelling the petitioner’s admission to the Diploma in Elementary Education.