REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 403  OF 2006

C. Venkat Reddy & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Union of India & Ors. …Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 293  OF 2006

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 46  OF 2006

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.  Writ  Petition  (C)  NO.  403  OF  2006  filed  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’) has been filed by 25  

petitioners claiming to be freedom fighters.  They make a grievance that they  

1

had  applied  for  freedom  fighters’  pension  under  the  Swatantrata  Sainik  

Samman  Pension Scheme,  1983 (in  short  the  ‘Scheme’)  but  there  has  been  

denial  of  the  pension  without  any  reason.   It  is  stated  that  several  special  

screening committees constituted by the State have favourably recommended  

their cases but nothing concrete has been done and the State Government also  

has shown little  interest in the matter.   Similarly in Writ Petition No. 46 of  

2006, 32 persons have made similar grievance.  In each of these cases, the claim  

is that the petitioner suffered imprisonment as a part of the freedom fight and  

therefore is entitled to the pension.

2. Learned counsel for the Union of India and the Government of Andhra  

Pradesh have filed details and have stated that so far as the Writ Petition No.  

403 of 2002 is concerned, after a preliminary verification it was noted that 22  

cases were found to be genuine cases and have been recommended.  In case of  

one Sh. Narayana Reddy, it was found that he was under age as on March,  

1947 and he was not entitled to any benefit.  It was also noted that two others  

namely Sh. K.J. Shiva Nagaiah and Smt. Gangamma  are dead  and therefore  

the question of making any recommendation does not arise. It is stated that on  

the basis of the orders passed by this Court, 22 persons found to be prima  

2

facie genuine are being paid pension with effect from 1.4.2002.  This position  

is accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners.  

3. The object of the scheme was highlighted by this Court in  Mukundlal  

Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 2127)

“The object was to honour and where it was necessary  also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their  all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of  those  who  do  not  have  sufficient  income  to  maintain  themselves refuse to take benefit of it since they consider it  as  an  affront  to  the  sense  of  patriotism  with  which  they  plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit  of the scheme  being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge  the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit  to  convert  it  into  some  kind  of  a  programme  of  compensation.  Yet that  may be the result  if  the benefit  is  directed  to  be given retrospectively  whatever  the  date the  application  is  made.  The  Scheme  should  retain  its  high  objective with which it was motivated...”

4. Again in Gurdial Singh v.  Union of India (2001 AIR SCW 3843) this  

Court observed as follows:

“It should not be forgotten that the persons intended  to be covered by the scheme have suffered for the country  about  half  a  century  back  and  had  not  expected  to  be  rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the  country  has  decided to  honour  such freedom fighters,  the  bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of  

3

such  freedom  fighters  are  expected  to  keep  in  mind  the  purpose and object of the scheme....”

5. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Mukundlal’s  

and  Gurdial  Singh’s cases  (supra).  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. It baffles one, beyond comprehension, when  

claim is made by a person who was not even born during the freedom struggle  

to  be  a  freedom  fighter.  Accepting  claims  of  such  persons  to  be  freedom  

fighters  would  be  making  a  mockery  of  the  scheme  which  is  intended  for  

genuine freedom fighters.  

6. The above position was highlighted in   Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State  

of Maharashtra (2005(7) SCC 605).

7. For  the  reasons  given  above  Writ  Petition  (C  )  No.  403  of  2006  is  

disposed of on the terms that in the 22 cases which have been found to be prima  

facie genuine, let payment of pension be continued.  It is made clear that if in  

4

future any further action on the basis of materials is warranted, the same can be  

taken in accordance with law.

8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 293  OF 2006 and WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  NO. 46  OF 2006

9. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the Government of Andhra  

Pradesh that the summary of events is as follows:

10. On 30.7.2005 the Govt. have entrusted to Director General, Vigilance &  

Enforcement Deptt. A.P., Hyderabad, for enquiry.

11. On 12.6.2006 Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement Deptt. A.P.,  

Hyderabad, has submitted report.

12. On  11.4.2007  the  decision  to  conduct  100%  re-verification  has  been  

communicated  to  all  the  District  Collectors-duly  forming  three  Member  

Committee.

13. A check list in consultation with the Govt. of India officials has also been  

prepared and sent to the District Collectors for conducting re-verification.

5

14. On consultations  with  the  officials  of  the  Govt.  of  India,  Ministry  of  

Home Affairs (FF Division), amendments to the Check list (already send) has  

also been issued.

15. The process of re-verification was progressing rather slowly on account  

of certain ground level problems in the villages.

16. On 4.4.2007 & 23.5.2007 the  reasons  (mentioned aboe)  for  delay  for  

furnishing of verification in respect of W.P.(C ) No. 403 of 2002 filed by Sr.  

C.Venkat Reddy & Ors. have been communicated the A.O.R.

17. However the Govt. have received certain re-verification reports from the  

Districts and they were forwarded to the Govt. of India but the Govt. of India  

could not take any decision on the above cases.

18. On 19.9.2007 the Govt. of India have constituted a Screening Committee  

of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEEF)- under the Chairmanship of Sri Konda  

Laxman Bapuji, alongwith eight other Members,  to scrutinize the re-verified  

cases  relating  to  Border  Camp  sufferings  during  Hyderbad  Liberation  

Movement.

6

19. On 28.9.2007 the Govt. of India have changed the earlier check list and  

furnished a revised one for conducting re-verification of the cases.

20. As such on 7.12008 the Govt.  of India have returned above 79 cases,  

which were sent to them with earlier check list, with a request to conduct re-

verification based on their revised check list of 28.9.2007.

21. On  9.1.2008  first  meeting  of  the  Screening  Committee  of  Eminent  

Freedom Fighters is held.

22. The  Govt.  of  A.P.  have  received  about  350 proposals  and  forwarded  

about 197 cases to Govt. of India.

23. On  18th and  19th February,  2008,  second  meeting  of  the  Screenings  

Committee  of  Eminent  Freedom  Fighters  is  held  and  about  50  cases  were  

discussed.

24. On 27.3.2008,  third  meeting  of  the  Screening  Committee  of  Eminent  

Freedom Fighters is held and about 15 cases were discussed.

7

25. Taking  into  account  the  various  steps  taken  by  the  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh, we direct that the enquiry which is stated to be pending be completed  

within  two  months.   Immediately  thereafter  the  report  be  submitted  by  the  

concerned Ministry to the Union of India.  On receipt of the report from the  

State Government, the Union of India is directed to take necessary follow up  

within a period of three months.

26. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

……………………………J. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi:  May 08, 2009

8