Supreme Court Sets Aside Pension Order for Freedom Fighter: Union of India vs. A. Alagam Perumal Kone & Others (22 February 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 680 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5343 of 2019)
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can a High Court order the grant of a freedom fighter’s pension without allowing the government to present its case? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where the High Court directed the Union of India to grant a pension without a full hearing. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for due process and adherence to the rules of the pension scheme. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the grant of a freedom fighter’s pension to Mr. A. Alagam Perumal Kone. Mr. Kone first applied for a pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on April 10, 1997, claiming he was underground during the Quit India Movement of 1942. This initial application was rejected on February 27, 2004, because it was not properly filled, the certifier’s certificate was vague, and a Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) was not provided.

Approximately 13 years later, on August 29, 2017, Mr. Kone submitted another application, this time claiming imprisonment for more than six months from January 5, 1944, to July 5, 1944, during the Quit India Movement. The Union of India, the appellant, requested that Mr. Kone submit a complete application with all necessary documents. Instead, Mr. Kone filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) seeking a directive for the grant of the pension.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), through a single judge, directed the Union of India to grant Mr. Kone a freedom fighter’s pension on October 26, 2017, without issuing a notice or allowing the Union to file a counter-affidavit. The High Court held that the certificate issued by an approved certifier was sufficient for the grant of pension. The Union of India appealed this order, arguing that the application was not supported by the required documents, the first application was rejected, and that they were not given an opportunity to present their case. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on August 29, 2018, without addressing the grounds raised by the Union of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, which provides pensions to freedom fighters who meet specific criteria. The scheme requires applicants to submit documentary evidence to authenticate their claims, such as proof of imprisonment. The Supreme Court noted that the scheme itself specifies the necessary documents for verification.

Arguments

Arguments by the Union of India (Appellant):

• The High Court erred in issuing a positive direction for the grant of pension without allowing the Union of India to file a counter-affidavit and rebut the allegations made in the writ petition.
• The High Court should not have directed the grant of pension without the competent authority examining the compliance of the conditions of the pension scheme.
• The first application made by Mr. Kone in 1997 was rejected, and this rejection was not disclosed by Mr. Kone in his second application or before the High Court.
• The documents submitted by Mr. Kone were not in compliance with the pension scheme.
• The High Court failed to consider the various grounds raised by the Union of India in the appeal.
• The Union of India relied on the judgments in W.B.Freedom Fighters’ Organization v. Union of India and Others [2004(7)SCC 716] and Union of India v. Bikash R. Bhowmik and Others [2004(7)SCC 722], arguing that the Court cannot interfere with the competent authority’s decision when the applications are not supported by required documents and that the pension can only be sanctioned as per the proof required under the scheme.

Arguments by Mr. A. Alagam Perumal Kone (Respondent):

• Mr. Kone contended that he participated in the freedom struggle and suffered losses, including imprisonment during the Quit India Movement.
• He argued that he was unduly deprived of the pension he was entitled to under the scheme.
• He claimed that his first application was not dealt with properly, and its rejection was arbitrary.
• He stated that he had submitted the necessary certificates, including a Co-Prisoner Certificate, and had complied with all the requirements of the scheme.
• He relied on the judgment in Union of India v. Sitakant S. Dubhashi and Anr. [2020(3)SCC 297] and argued that there was no illegality in the High Court’s order.
• He stated that a similar petition was already dismissed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.11132 of 2019 (Diary No.2923 of 2019).

Innovativeness of the argument: The Union of India highlighted the procedural lapse by the High Court in not allowing them to present their case, while Mr. Kone focused on his sacrifices and the perceived injustice of denying him the pension.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court can be summarized as:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the grant of pension without giving the Union of India an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and without considering the conditions of the pension scheme.
2. Whether the High Court should have entertained a second application for pension when the first application was rejected and the rejection was not disclosed.
3. Whether the documents submitted by the respondent were sufficient to grant the pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in W.B.Freedom Fighters’ Organization v. Union of India and Others [2004(7)SCC 716]* and stated that when the competent committee has considered and opined that the applications were not supported by required documents and rejected the application, this Court cannot interfere with the same.
• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Union of India v. Bikash R. Bhowmik and Others [2004(7)SCC 722]* and stated that pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980 can be sanctioned as per the proof required under the scheme and in no other manner.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the ratio in Union of India v. Sitakant S. Dubhashi and Anr. [2020(3)SCC 297]*, stating that the facts and documentary evidence of each case must be considered individually.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapses of the High Court and the need to adhere to the established rules of the pension scheme. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have issued a positive direction for the grant of pension without giving the Union of India an opportunity to present its case and without the competent authority examining the compliance of the conditions of the pension scheme. The Court also noted that the respondent had not disclosed the rejection of his first application, which was a significant factor in its decision.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal principles of due process and adherence to established procedures, which weighed more than the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but ultimately rejected them, emphasizing the need to follow due process and the established rules of the pension scheme. The Court stated that the High Court should not have issued a positive direction for the grant of pension without giving the Union of India an opportunity to present its case and without the competent authority examining the compliance of the conditions of the pension scheme.

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

• The High Court disposed of the petition without issuing notice to the Union of India and without giving an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit.
• The High Court issued a positive direction for the grant of pension without the competent authority examining the compliance of the conditions of the pension scheme.
• The first application made by Mr. Kone in 1997 was rejected, and this rejection was not disclosed by Mr. Kone in his second application or before the High Court.
• The documents submitted by Mr. Kone were not in compliance with the pension scheme.
• The High Court failed to consider the various grounds raised by the Union of India in the appeal.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The scheme prescribes to file certain documents to authenticate the imprisonment of a claimant as a freedom fighter.”
• “Whether the claimant fulfills the criteria or not, it is for the competent authority to examine it.”
• “In any event, when such serious factual disputes emerge for consideration, the High Court ought not to have disposed of the petition filed by the Respondent without even issuing notice and giving opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the allegations made by the appellant.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the judgment.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases, emphasizing the need for High Courts to follow due process and the established rules of any pension scheme. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that High Courts should not interfere with the decisions of competent authorities without proper cause and without allowing the authorities to present their case.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The Court primarily reiterated the existing legal principles of due process and adherence to established procedures.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must ensure that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case before issuing orders.
• Pension schemes must be administered according to their established rules and procedures.
• Applicants for pensions must disclose all relevant information, including previous rejections.
• The competent authority must examine the compliance with the conditions of the pension scheme.
• This judgment reinforces the need for due process and adherence to established procedures in administrative matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not issue positive directions for the grant of pension without giving the concerned authorities an opportunity to present their case and without the competent authority examining the compliance of the conditions of the pension scheme. This case reinforces the need for due process and adherence to established procedures in administrative matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to the rules of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The Court held that the High Court should not have issued a positive direction for the grant of pension without giving the Union of India an opportunity to present its case and without the competent authority examining the compliance of the conditions of the pension scheme. The Court also noted that the respondent had not disclosed the rejection of his first application, which was a significant factor in its decision. This judgment reinforces the need for High Courts to follow due process and the established rules of any pension scheme.