The Supreme Court has restored freedom fighters’ pension benefits to the widow of a former freedom fighter, ruling that authorities must adopt a practical and compassionate approach while examining claims involving events that took place decades ago.
The Court held that pension under the freedom fighters’ Samman Nidhi scheme is an expression of national gratitude, not a charitable benefit. It emphasised that elderly claimants cannot be expected to produce documents dating back nearly half a century and that the State must not allow procedural technicalities to defeat legitimate claims.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench judgment that had overturned an earlier Single Judge order granting pension to the widow of late freedom fighter Ramakant Tripathi.
The Court directed that the pension be paid with effect from April 6, 1991, along with interest at 6 per cent.
Supreme Court Says Historical Claims Cannot Be Judged By Criminal Trial Standards
The Bench observed that claims for freedom fighters’ pension must be assessed on the basis of probabilities rather than the stringent standards of proof applicable in criminal proceedings.
It noted that the applicants are often elderly individuals who may no longer possess records of events that occurred decades ago. Requiring them to produce such documents would impose an unreasonable burden.
The Court also underscored that jail registers, police records and government gazettes are maintained by the State. Therefore, the responsibility of locating and examining these documents rests with the authorities, rather than the claimant.
The Bench observed:
“The pension acknowledges a debt owed by the nation, the claimant comes before the authority as one to whom something is owed, not as a supplicant seeking a favour.”
It further cautioned that a delayed, indifferent or excessively technical process undermines the very honour that the pension scheme seeks to confer, even if the benefit is eventually granted.
Widow’s Claim Traced To Maihar Praja Mandal Movement
The case concerned the widow of Ramakant Tripathi, who had participated in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement during 1945-46.
According to the claim, Tripathi was imprisoned for 25 days in Maihar Jail in 1946 for his participation in the movement.
His application for Samman Nidhi under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Rules, 1972, was rejected by the State Government through an order dated April 6, 1991, which did not provide reasons for the decision.
Following Tripathi’s death in 2016, his widow approached the District Collector seeking pension benefits. The rejection of her claim was subsequently upheld by the State Government, compelling her to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
A Single Judge ruled in her favour and directed the authorities to release the pension as a mark of honour. However, a Division Bench reversed that decision, holding the claim to be barred by delay, laches and estoppel.
The widow then challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.
Official Records Supported The Widow’s Entitlement
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court Division Bench had failed to properly consider material evidence establishing the widow’s eligibility.
The Bench particularly relied on the District Freedom Fighters List maintained by the Collector. The official record documented Tripathi’s participation in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement of 1945-46 and his imprisonment in 1946.
The Court held that the plea of delay and laches could not be used to deny the pension when the available records established the claimant’s entitlement under the applicable rules.
It observed that the State and the High Court had overlooked significant evidence and that the Division Bench’s decision could not be sustained.
The Court further stressed that the manner in which a claim is received, examined and decided is itself part of the recognition extended to freedom fighters and their families.
“The manner in which a claim is received, examined and decided is itself part of the recognition the Scheme confers. A delayed, indifferent, or hyper technical process diminishes the honour, even where the pension is eventually paid,” the Bench observed.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, restored the Single Judge’s order and directed the grant of Samman Nidhi to the widow with effect from April 6, 1991, along with 6 per cent interest.