Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIAversusMOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1016
Decided: 9 September 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The Government alone is the competent authority to evaluate the sufficiency and authenticity of documents for freedom‑fighter status; the High Court erred in doing so.

Summary

The first respondent claimed freedom‑fighter status and applied for a pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, relying primarily on a certificate from an MLA and a co‑prisoner as proof of six months' imprisonment. The Government examined the documents and concluded that they were insufficient to establish the claim, denying the pension. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, however, held that the evidence was adequate and declared the respondents freedom fighters, allowing the writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the assessment of the sufficiency and genuineness of documents is the exclusive function of the Government, not the High Court, citing Mukund Lal Bhanda1i v. Union of India. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, dismissed the writ petition without costs, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can independently assess the sufficiency of documentary evidence to determine freedom‑fighter status under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme.
Whether the documents submitted (certificate of an MLA and co‑prisoner) are sufficient to prove imprisonment for six months.
Whether the Government is the sole authority to evaluate the genuineness of evidence for pension entitlement.

Subjects

Freedom Fighters' Pension SchemePension entitlementFreedom fighter statusEvidentiary burdenAdministrative discretionHigh CourtSupreme CourtAppeal

Judgment

A                                 UNION OF INDIA
                                            v.
                               MOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

                                 SEPTEMBER 9, 1996

B                  (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

              Freedom Fighters Pe11sio11 Scheme.
             t:

         Claim for pe11sio11-Plimary evide11ce in support of-Ce1tificate of a11
  MLA a11d a co-pliso11er that the claima11ts had 1111dergo11e impliso11111e11t for
C six mol1ths-Co11sidered by Govemment---Found that the claimants were not
  a freedom fighter~High Court holding that in view of the evidence produced
  by the clai111a11ts, they should be declared freedom fighters--011 appeal held,
  Gove'ni111e11t already considered the doc11me11ts a11d came to the conclusion
  that these docu111e11ts were 11ot sufficient to prove that the responde11ts had
D suffered imp1iso11111e11t-High Co wt 11ot to have i11dulged i11 appreciation of
  evide11ce in this regard which is the function of the Govem111C11t.

         Mukz111d Lal Bha11dmi & Ors. v. U11io11 of India & Ors., [1993) Supp.
    3 sec 2, relied on.

E            ·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.12314 of
     1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 1.6.1995 of the Punjab &
     Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3790of1994.

F             N.N. Goswami, Hemant Sharma and P. Parmeswaran for the Appel-
     lant.

         M.P. Jha, Sanjeev Walia, A.K. Chopra, Anil Mittal and Manoj
     Swamp for the Respondents.

G             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

              Leave granted.

              We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

H             This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order
                                          686
                            U.0.1. v. MOHAN SINGH                             687

    dated June 1, 1995 made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil              A
    Writ Petition No. 3790 of 1994. The first respondent, claiming to be a
    freedom fighter, made an application on August 1, 1972 for pension under
    the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme framed by the Government of
    India. The primary evidence in support of his undergoing imprisonment for
    six months has been based on a Certificate of an MLA and co-prisoner.-           B
    That certificate was considered by the appellant Government, as per the
\   directions of the High Court in an earlier writ petition, and it is found that
    the respondent was not a freedom fighter and, therefore, not entitled to
    the pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. The respon-
    dents again challenged the decision in the present writ petition. The High
    Court in the impugned order has ·held that in view of the evidence               C
    produced by the respondents, they must be declared freedom fighters.
    Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed. Hence, this appeal by
    special leave.

           This Court in Mukund Lal Bhanda1i & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,        D
    (1993] Supp. 3 SCC 2 (para 6) had held, as regards the sufficiency of the
    proof, that the Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required
    to be produced before the Government. It is not possible for this Court to
    scrutinize the documents which according to the petitioners they had
    produced in support of their claim, and pronounce upon their genuineness.
    It is the function of the Government to do so. We would, therefore, direct       E
    accordingly.

          It is seen that the High Court had directed the Government, in the
    earlier writ petition, and in compliance thereof the Government of India
    had considered the documents relied upon by the respondents and came
    to the conclusion, as a fact, that these documents are not sufficient to         F
    conclude that the respondents had suffered imprisonment. The High Court
    found it, on appreciation of evidence, to be sufficient, which the High
    Court cannot embark upon.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court G
    stands set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed but under the cir-
    cumstances without costs.

    G.N.                                                        Appeal allowed.

                                                                                     H

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme"Sign in to search