Supreme Court Rejects Freedom Fighter Pension Claim Due to Lack of Evidence: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 03 February 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 64

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose. This was a unanimous decision by a two-judge bench, with the opinion authored by Justice Vineet Saran.

Can a person be granted a freedom fighter’s pension based solely on a school certificate and certificates from other freedom fighters, without meeting the specific criteria of being a proclaimed offender or having an arrest warrant? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning a claim under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The Court ultimately ruled against the claimant, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the scheme’s requirements. This case highlights the importance of documentary evidence and official records in establishing eligibility for such benefits.

Case Background

The case revolves around Krishna Modi, who applied for a freedom fighter’s pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Modi claimed that he was underground for eight months during the 1942 freedom movement, specifically from November 21, 1942, to August 20, 1943. He stated that he did not attend school during this period due to his underground activities. His initial application was rejected, leading to a protracted legal battle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Union of India to consider Krishna Modi’s pension claim. After the claim was rejected by the Union of India on 03.02.2009, Modi filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was allowed on 14.02.2019. The Single Judge set aside the rejection order and directed the government to grant Modi the pension with 6% interest per annum. The Union of India appealed this decision to a Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed on 17.02.2020. The Union of India then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. This scheme was introduced by the Central Government on 15.08.1981. The scheme provides for pension to freedom fighters. The court noted that the scheme was an amendment to the 1972 scheme, which removed the ceiling on annual income for eligibility. The court also discussed the eligibility criteria under the scheme, which required that a person should have remained underground for more than six months, provided he was a proclaimed offender; or one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced; or one for whom detention order was issued but not served.

Arguments

Appellant (Union of India)’s Arguments:

• The respondent was only 12 years old during the claimed period of being underground, making his participation unlikely.
• There was no specific proof of the respondent being underground, except for a school certificate obtained after 40 years, which was also disputed.
• The respondent’s absence from school during the period does not automatically prove he was underground for the freedom movement.
• The application was filed 20 years after the scheme’s inception, indicating a delay.
• The respondent did not fulfill the mandatory criteria of being a proclaimed offender, having an arrest warrant, or a detention order issued.
• The respondent failed to provide a Non-availability of Record Certificate (NARC).
• Certificates from freedom fighters were unreliable as those freedom fighters were themselves in custody during the period they certified the respondent’s underground status.
• The State Government merely forwarded the application without any recommendation, which was mandatory.

Respondent (Krishna Modi)’s Arguments:

• The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court had given a finding of fact that all requirements under the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980 were fulfilled.
• The respondent was already receiving a freedom fighter’s pension under a similar scheme of the State Government.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the respondent, Krishna Modi, was eligible for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, given the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Union of India Versus Avtar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 493 – The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that while genuine freedom fighters deserve respect and benefits, those who did not participate in the freedom struggle should not be allowed to benefit from a liberal approach.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 – The court examined the eligibility criteria under this scheme, specifically the requirement of being a proclaimed offender, having an arrest warrant, or a detention order issued but not served, in order to be considered an underground freedom fighter.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India Versus Avtar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 493*: The Supreme Court used this case to underscore that while genuine freedom fighters deserve respect and benefits, those who did not participate in the freedom struggle should not be allowed to benefit from a liberal approach.
• Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980: The Court rigorously applied the eligibility criteria under this scheme, emphasizing that the respondent did not meet the requirements of being a proclaimed offender, having an arrest warrant, or a detention order issued.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence and the failure of the respondent to meet the specific criteria outlined in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The court emphasized that while genuine freedom fighters should be honored, benefits must be awarded only to those who meet the scheme’s requirements. The court was not swayed by the respondent’s age, the school certificate, or the certificates from other freedom fighters, as these were not considered sufficient proof of being an underground freedom fighter according to the scheme’s criteria. The court also took into account the procedural lapses, such as the lack of recommendation from the State Government and the absence of a Non-availability of Record Certificate (NARC).

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the respondent was indeed an underground freedom fighter. However, it rejected these interpretations due to the lack of sufficient evidence and the clear requirements of the pension scheme. The court emphasized that the scheme’s criteria were not met, and the respondent’s claims were not supported by the necessary documentation or official records. The court’s final decision was based on the principle that benefits under the scheme must be awarded only to those who fulfill the required conditions.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria of being a proclaimed offender, having an arrest warrant, or a detention order issued.
• The school certificate and certificates from other freedom fighters were not considered sufficient proof of being an underground freedom fighter.
• The State Government had merely forwarded the application without any recommendation, which was mandatory.
• The respondent failed to provide a Non-availability of Record Certificate (NARC).

The court quoted from the judgment of Union of India Versus Avtar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 493:

“8. …………The genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that 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.”

The court stated that the judgments of the High Court were based on sympathy and presumption, without proper authentication as required under the scheme in question. The court did not have any majority or minority opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Strict adherence to the eligibility criteria of government schemes is essential for receiving benefits.
• Documentary evidence and official records are crucial in establishing claims for government benefits.
• Certificates from third parties may not be sufficient if they do not meet the requirements of the scheme.
• Procedural requirements, such as recommendations from the State Government and submission of NARC, must be followed.
• Sympathy or other considerations cannot be the basis for granting benefits if the eligibility criteria are not met.

This judgment emphasizes the need for claimants to provide concrete evidence and meet the specific requirements of government schemes. It also highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the limitations of relying on third-party certifications.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court dated 14.02.2019 and 17.02.2020.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that to be eligible for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, an applicant must strictly adhere to the criteria laid down in the scheme. This includes providing documentary evidence of being a proclaimed offender, having an arrest warrant, or a detention order issued but not served. The judgment reinforces the principle that benefits under such schemes should not be granted based on sympathy or presumption, but rather on strict compliance with the scheme’s requirements. There is no change in the previous positions of law; the court simply applied the existing law and scheme to the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Krishna Modi & Anr. underscores the importance of adhering to the specific requirements of government schemes. The Court rejected Krishna Modi’s claim for a freedom fighter’s pension, citing insufficient evidence and failure to meet the eligibility criteria under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. This judgment serves as a reminder that while genuine freedom fighters deserve recognition and benefits, such benefits must be awarded only to those who meet the scheme’s requirements, supported by proper documentation and official records.

Category

Parent Category: Pension Law

Child Category: Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980

Parent Category: Government Schemes

Child Category: Eligibility Criteria

Parent Category: Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980

Child Category: Eligibility Criteria, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980

FAQ

Q: What is the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980?

A: It is a pension scheme introduced by the Central Government to honor freedom fighters who participated in India’s independence movement.

Q: What are the eligibility criteria for the pension?

A: To be eligible, a person must have been a proclaimed offender, had an arrest warrant issued against them, or had a detention order issued but not served. Additionally, they must have remained underground for more than six months.

Q: What kind of evidence is required to prove eligibility?

A: Official records, such as arrest warrants, detention orders, or a Non-availability of Record Certificate (NARC), are required. Certificates from other freedom fighters may not be sufficient.

Q: Can a person receive a pension based on a school certificate?

A: No, a school certificate alone is not sufficient proof of being an underground freedom fighter.

Q: What is the significance of the State Government’s recommendation?

A: The State Government must recommend the application for the pension, merely forwarding the application is not sufficient.

Q: What does this Supreme Court judgment mean for future pension claims?

A: This judgment emphasizes that all claimants must strictly adhere to the eligibility criteria and provide concrete evidence to support their claims. Benefits will not be granted based on sympathy or presumptions.