1991 JTR(SC) 481
1991 3 CurCC(SC) 225 ; 1992 1 CurLJ 189 ; 1991 4 JT 184 ; 1991 2 Scale 532 ; 1991 4 SCC 366 ; 1991 2 UJ 734 ; 1991 KHC 1170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra, CJI., P.B.Sawant, J.
Surja
Versus
Union Of India
Case No., 75 of 1991
Date of Decision, 9/13/91
Advocates Appeared: Pal R.P.Singh, Ramaswamy G., Srivastava A.K., Subhashini A.
Persons sentenced to at least six months of imprisonment for participation in the freedom struggle remain eligible for the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme even if they were released earlier due to a general amnesty or remission.
Act
Referred
:Constitution of India
: Art.32
(A) The case centers on the interpretation of the eligibility criteria under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (formerly the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme of 1972). The primary statutory requirement for eligibility is that a person must have suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in mainland jails before independence during the struggle for independence. The court analyzed whether the participation in the Arya Samaj movement within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad qualifies as part of the freedom struggle and whether a sentence reduced by a general amnesty still satisfies the 'minimum imprisonment' requirement of the scheme.
(B) The core legal principle established is that if a freedom fighter is sentenced to a term exceeding the minimum requirement (six months), the subsequent grant of a general amnesty by the state during the term of imprisonment does not disqualify the individual from receiving pension benefits, provided the original conviction and sentence were for the requisite cause.
Facts of the case:
Fifty-five petitioners claimed pension benefits under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, asserting they participated in the Arya Samaj movement in the Nizams State of Hyderabad during the late 1930s. They were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, most exceeding two years. However, while serving their sentences, a general amnesty was declared by the Nizam, resulting in their early release. The government disputed the entitlement of most petitioners despite accepting that the Arya Samaj movement was part of the freedom struggle.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had indeed been convicted and sentenced to terms exceeding six months. It noted that the petitioners did not pray for remission; rather, they were released due to a general amnesty. The court observed that the essential condition for the pension was the suffering of a minimum sentence of six months, and since the petitioners were ordered to suffer such terms, the subsequent amnesty did not negate their right to the benefit.
Issues:
Whether individuals sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment for participation in the freedom struggle, but released earlier due to a general amnesty, are eligible for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to earn a pension is triggered by the conviction and the imposition of a sentence meeting the minimum duration requirement. A reduction of the actual time served via a general amnesty, not sought by the prisoner, does not strip the individual of the status earned by the original sentence.
Result:
The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to admit the petitioners to the pension scheme with effect from 01/08/1980.
(A) The case centers on the interpretation of the eligibility criteria under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (formerly the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme of 1972). The primary statutory requirement for eligibility is that a person must have suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in mainland jails before independence during the struggle for independence. The court analyzed whether the participation in the Arya Samaj movement within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad qualifies as part of the freedom struggle and whether a sentence reduced by a general amnesty still satisfies the 'minimum imprisonment' requirement of the scheme.
(B) The core legal principle established is that if a freedom fighter is sentenced to a term exceeding the minimum requirement (six months), the subsequent grant of a general amnesty by the state during the term of imprisonment does not disqualify the individual from receiving pension benefits, provided the original conviction and sentence were for the requisite cause.
Facts of the case:
Fifty-five petitioners claimed pension benefits under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, asserting they participated in the Arya Samaj movement in the Nizams State of Hyderabad during the late 1930s. They were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, most exceeding two years. However, while serving their sentences, a general amnesty was declared by the Nizam, resulting in their early release. The government disputed the entitlement of most petitioners despite accepting that the Arya Samaj movement was part of the freedom struggle.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had indeed been convicted and sentenced to terms exceeding six months. It noted that the petitioners did not pray for remission; rather, they were released due to a general amnesty. The court observed that the essential condition for the pension was the suffering of a minimum sentence of six months, and since the petitioners were ordered to suffer such terms, the subsequent amnesty did not negate their right to the benefit.
Issues:
Whether individuals sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment for participation in the freedom struggle, but released earlier due to a general amnesty, are eligible for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to earn a pension is triggered by the conviction and the imposition of a sentence meeting the minimum duration requirement. A reduction of the actual time served via a general amnesty, not sought by the prisoner, does not strip the individual of the status earned by the original sentence.
Result:
The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to admit the petitioners to the pension scheme with effect from 01/08/1980.
Pension - The petitioners relied on this case where similar relief for pension for Freedom Fighters had been accepted.
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.Subhashini, G.RAMASVAMY, R.P.SINGH PAL
JUDGMENT
RANGANATH MISRA, C.J.I.
(1) THIS is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution by 55 persons - both men and women - claiming the benefit of the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters.
(2) IT is the common contention of the petitioners that they had joined the Arya Samaj movement in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad and each of them had been convicted under different provisions of the criminal law then prevailing within the Nizams State and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. In the case of most of them the term of imprisonment was around two years. They maintained that the Arya Samaj movement has been equated with the freedom struggle and the benefit of the pension scheme is admissible to those who had participated in the movement as Arya Samajists. According to them, in the prime of youth the petitioners had been motivated by the call of Mahatma Gandhi,the Father of the Nation and leaders like the late Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr Rajendra Prasad and others and bad given up their home and hearth and had joined the agitation within the Nizams State and suffered the consequences. Since their claim for pension had not been accepted by the government of India they have applied to this court for appropriate direction for being admitted to the benefits of the scheme.
(3) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Undersecretary Alam in the Ministry of Home Affairs who while not disputing the assertion of the petitioners that the Union of India had accepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a part of the freedom struggle has disputed the entitlement of pension in the case, of most of the petitioners.
(4) PETITIONERS have relied upon the decision of this court dated 16/07/1991, in Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1989 ( Duli Chand v. Union of India ) where similar relief claimed by 41 persons had been accepted. That case, according to the counter-affidavit, was disposed of ex: parte and by accepting all the allegations of the petitioners therein. In view of the dispute now raised in the counter-affidavit, particularly with reference to the factual aspects, we do not think it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition by adopting the order of this court in the said writ petition.
(5) IT is the accepted position that if petitioners suffered the minimum sentence of six months of imprisonment on. account of their participation in the Arya Samaj movement they would be entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. .The question for examination, therefore, is whether petitioners did suffer such sentence
(6) AS we have already mentioned most of the petitioners have produced material to show that they had participated as alleged and were sentenced to imprisonment for terms exceeding ,six months. While they were undergoing sentence, without their praying for any remission, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday and the sentence was reduced and the petitioners were set free.
(7) FREEDOM Fighters Pension Scheme of 1972 was renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980". The brochure published by the Union of India indicates: "A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension." It has already been indicated that each of the petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six months. The petitioners assertion that they did not claim remission has not been doubted or disputed. In the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond six months remission had been granted and they were let off earlier would not take away their right to earn pension. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respondents has accepted this construction of the entitlement clause,
(8) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to admit each of the petitioners to pension under the Scheme within two months hence. The pension be paid with effect from 1/08/1980 as in the connected case. No costs.