Supreme Court of India
C. VENKAT REDDY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 769
- Decided
- 8 May 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Court ordered continuation of pension for the 22 prima facie genuine claimants and dismissed the other petitions, holding that only genuine freedom fighters are entitled to benefits under the scheme.
Summary
Twenty-five petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 claiming freedom‑fighter status and entitlement to pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983, but were denied benefits. The Union of India and the Government of Andhra Pradesh reported that after preliminary verification only 22 of the claimants were found to be prima facie genuine and were already receiving pension. The Court examined the object of the scheme, relying on earlier decisions (Mukundlal Bhandari, Gurdial Singh, Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar) which emphasized honouring genuine freedom fighters while preventing undeserving claims. It held that genuine freedom fighters deserve respect and pension, but persons without a real role in the freedom struggle must not benefit. Consequently, the Court directed continuation of pension for the 22 genuine claimants and dismissed the remaining claims, disposing of the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983.
- What criteria determine a 'genuine' freedom fighter for purposes of the scheme.
- Whether denial of pension violates the petitioners' fundamental right to constitutional remedy under Article 32.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
Freedom fighter pensionSwatantra Sainik Samman Pension SchemeArticle 32Genuine freedom fighterConstitutional remedyWrit petition
Judgment
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 493
~
C. VENKAT REDDY AND ORS. .A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 403 of 2002)
MAY 8, 2009
B
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983 -
Petitions under Art.32 - Writ Petitioners aggrieved by denial
of freedom fighters pension under the Scheme - Claim that c
the petitioners suffered imprisonment as a part of the freedom
fight and therefore are entitled to the pension - Statement on_
behalf Of Union of India and Government of Andhra Pradesh
that 22 claimants have been found to be prima facie genuine
• and are being paid pension - Object of the Scheme referred D
to - Held: Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with
reverence, respect and honour- But at the same time people
who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not
be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to
be adopted in the case of freedom fighters, most of whom in
E
. the normal course are septuagenarians and octogenarians -
•; Payment of pension directed to be continued in the 22 cases
which have ,been found to be prima facie genuine -
Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 32.
~
Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. AIR F
(1993) SC 2127;Gurdial singh v. Union of India (2001) AIR
SCW 3843 and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of
Maharashtra (2005) 7 SCC 605, relied on.
Case Law Reference :
... G
(1993) SC 2127 relied on Para 3
(2001) AIR sew 3843 relied on Para 4
(2005) 1 sec 605 relied on Para 6
493 H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 403 of
2002.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
WITH
B
W.P. (c) No. 46 of 2006 and 293 of 2006.
Lata Krishnamurthy, Ashok Kumar Singh, Naresh Kumar
Gaur, Surinder Dutt Sharma, Baushri Swaraj, Joyeeta Banerjee
and Anil Kumar Tandale for the Petitioners.
c T.S. Doabia, Rekha Pandey, Sushma Suri, Manoj Swarup,
T.V. George, P. Venkat Reddy and T. Anil Kumar for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Writ Petition (C) NO. 403 OF
2002 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950
(in short the 'Constitution') has been filed by 25 petitioners
claiming to be freedom fighters. They make a grievance that
they had applied for freedom fighters' pension under "thel
E Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983 (in short
the 'Scheme') but there has been denial of the pension without
any reason. It is stated that several special screening
committees constituted by the State have favourably
..
•
recommended their cases but nothing concrete has been done
F and the State Government also has shown little interest in the
matter. Similarly in Writ Petition No. 46 of 2006, 32 persons
have made similar grievance. In each of these cases, the claim
is that the petitioner suffered imprisonment as a part of the
freedom fight and therefore is entitled to the pension.
G 2. Learned counsel for the Union of India and the
Government of Andhra Pradesh have filed details and have
stated that so far as the Writ Petition No. 403 of 2002 is
concerned, after a preliminary verification it was noted that 22
cases were found to be genuine cases and have been
H recommended. In case of one Sh. Narayana Reddy, it was
C.VENKAT REDDY AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 495
AND ORS. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
found that he was under age as on March, 1947 and he was A
not entitled to any benefit. It was 'also noted that two others
namely Sh. K.J. Shiva Nagaiah and Smt. Gangamma are dead
and therefore the question of making any recommendation
does not arise. It is stated that on the basis of the orders passed
by this Court, 22 persons found to be prima facie genuine are B
being paid pension with effect from 1.4.2002. This position is
accepted by learned counsel tor. the petitioners.
3. The object of the scheme was highlighted by this Court
in Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1993
SC 2127)
c
"The. object was to honour and where it was
necessary also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had
given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact,
many of those who do not have sufficient income to D
maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it since they
cons.ider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with
which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of
the scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and ·
acknowledge' the valuable sacrifices made, it would be E
contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind ora
"· programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if
the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever
the date the application is made. The Scheme should
retain its high objective with which it was motivated ... " F
4. Again in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001 AIR
SCW 3843) this Court observed as follows:
"It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be
covered by the scheme have suffered for the country about G
half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded
for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country
has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the
bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases
of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A purpose and object of the scheme ... ."
5. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed
in Mukundlal's and Gurdiat Singh's cases (supra). Genuine
freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, respect
and honour. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that
8
'people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should
not be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required
to be adopted in the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom
in the normal course are septuagenarians and octogenarians.
It baffles one, beyond comprehension, when claim is made by
C a person who was not even born during the freedom struggle
to be a freedom fighter. Accepting claims of such persons to
be freedom fighters would be making a mockery of the scheme
which is intended for genuine freedom fighters.
D 6. The above position was highlighted in Bhaurao Dagdu
Paratkar v. State of Maharashtra (2005(7) SCC 605).
7. For the reasons given above Writ Petition (C) No. 403
of 2006 is disposed of on the terms that in the 22 cases which
E have been found to be prima facie genuine, let payment of
pension be continued. It is made clear that if in future any further
action on the basis of materials is warranted, the same can be
taken in accordance with law.
8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
F
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 293 OF 2006 and WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 46 OF 2002
9. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the
Government of Andhra Pradesh that the summary of events is
G as follows:
10. On 30.7.2005 the Govt. have entrusted to Director
General, Vigilance & Enforcement Deptt. AP., Hyderabad, for '
enquiry.
H
C.VENKAT REDDY AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 497
AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
11. On 12.6.2006 Director General, Vigilance & A
Enforcement Deptt. A.P., Hyderabad, has submitted report.
12. On 11.4.2007 the decision to conduct 100% re-
verification has been communicated to all the District
Collectors-duly forming three Member Committee. 8
13. A check list in consultation with the Govt. of India
• officials has also been prepared and sent to the District
Collectors for conducting re-verification.
14. On consultations with the officials of the Govt. of India, c
Ministry of Home Affairs (FF Division), amendments to the
Check list (already send) has also been issued.
15. The process of re-verification was progressing rather
slowly on account of certain ground level problems in the
~ D
villages.
16. On 4.4.2007 & 23.5.2007 the reasons (mentioned
above) for delay for furnishing of verification in respect of
W.P.(C ) No. 403 of 2002 filed by Sr. C. VENKAT Reddy &
Ors. have been communicated to the A.0.R. E
17. However the Govt. have received certain re-verificati.on
, reports from the Districts and they were forwarded to the Govt.
--- of India but the Govt. of India could/not take any decision on
the above cases.
F
18. On 19.9.2007 the Govt. of India have constituted a
Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEEF)-
under the Chairmanship of Sri Konda Laxman Bapuji, alongwith
eight other Members, to scrutinize the re-verified cases relating
to Border Camp sufferings during Hyderbad Liberation G
1
Movement. ·
19. On 28.9.2007 the Govt. of India have changed the
earlier check list and furnished a revised one for conducting re-
verification of the cases. H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A 20. As such on 7.12008 the Govt. of India have returned
above 79 cases, which were sent to them with earlier check
list, with a request to conduct re-verification based on their
revised check list of 28.9.2007.
21. On 9.1.2008 first meeting of the Screening Committee
8
of Eminent Freedom Fighters is held.
22. The Govt. of A.P. have received about 350 proposals
and forwarded about 197 cases to Govt. of India.
c 23. On 18th and 19th February, 2008, second meeting of
the Screenings Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters is
held and about 50 cases were discussed.
24. On 27.3.2008, third meeting of the Screening
Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters is held and about 15
0 cases were discussed.
25. Taking into account the various steps taken by the
State of Andhra Pradesh, we direct that the enquiry which is
stated to be pending be completed within two months.
E Immediately thereafter the report be submitted by the concerned
Ministry to the Union of India. On receipt of the report from the
State Government, the Union of India is directed to take
necessary follow up within a period of three months.
26. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
F
B.B.B. Writ Petitions disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Freedom fighter pension"Sign in to search