The Supreme Court has held that authorities must adopt a practical and humane approach while examining claims for pension under freedom fighters’ welfare schemes, observing that elderly claimants cannot be expected to produce documentary evidence relating to events that occurred nearly half a century ago.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Sushila Tripathi, the widow of late freedom fighter Ramakant Tripathi, and restoring her entitlement to pension under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Scheme.
The Court set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench judgment which had overturned a Single Judge’s decision directing the State to grant pension to the appellant. It directed restoration of the Single Judge’s order granting Samman Nidhi with effect from April 6, 1991, along with interest at 6%.
The case concerned Ramakant Tripathi’s participation in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement of 1945-46, during which he was allegedly imprisoned for 25 days in Maihar Jail in 1946.
His claim for pension under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Rules, 1972, had initially been rejected by the State Government through an order dated April 6, 1991. Following his death in 2016, his widow approached the District Collector seeking the benefit, but the claim was subsequently rejected by the authorities.
The matter eventually reached the Madhya Pradesh High Court. While the Single Judge ruled in her favour and directed the State to release the pension, the Division Bench reversed the decision, relying on delay, laches and estoppel. Aggrieved by the reversal, Sushila Tripathi approached the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court Division Bench had failed to properly appreciate material evidence establishing the deceased’s participation in the freedom movement.
Significantly, the Court took note of the District Freedom Fighters List maintained by the Collector, which recorded Ramakant Tripathi’s participation in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement of 1945-46 and his imprisonment in 1946.
The Bench emphasised that proceedings concerning freedom fighters’ pensions cannot be subjected to the stringent evidentiary requirements applicable to criminal trials. Such claims must instead be assessed on the touchstone of probabilities, keeping in view the historical circumstances and the practical difficulties involved in procuring old records.
It further observed that the responsibility of locating historical records, including jail registers, police files and official gazettes, should rest with the State, which is the custodian of such material, rather than being shifted onto elderly applicants.
The Court underscored that Samman Nidhi is not a charitable concession or a governmental dole, but an expression of national gratitude and recognition of the sacrifices made by freedom fighters.
It observed that a claimant approaching the authorities for such pension is not seeking a favour from the State but asserting an entitlement arising from a debt of gratitude owed by the nation.
The Bench also cautioned that the manner in which applications are received, scrutinised and decided forms an integral part of the recognition that the welfare scheme seeks to confer. Delayed, indifferent or hypertechnical adjudication, it said, diminishes the honour associated with the scheme, even if the pension is eventually sanctioned.
Holding that the appellant was entitled to Samman Nidhi under the applicable Rules and that the plea of delay and laches was unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Single Judge’s order.
The post Freedom fighters pension claims must be assessed on probabilities, not strict proof: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.