By Nikhil Goel

During a recent hearing, Justice DY Chandrachud, senior judge of the Supreme Court, revealed the significance of some immortal words of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a towering leader of India’s Independence movement. The remarks of Justice Chandrachud were inspired after he saw a painting in the background of the appearing Senior Counsel. He revealed that he had read those words every day when he was in that High Court as the words had great significance for justice.

This is not surprising as the immortal words represent a courageous willingness to suffer for a cause. The plaque carrying these words is installed on the second floor of the Court, just outside the central court where Tilak’s trial took place in 1908. The words are: “In spite of the verdict of the jury, I maintain that I am innocent. There are higher powers that rule the destiny of men and nations and it may be the will of providence that the cause which I represent may prosper more by my suffering than by my remaining free.”

There is no doubt that there is jurisprudential value in the words of Tilak. Everyone knows that Tilak was one of the most eminent revolutionaries who fought and guided the freedom movement of India. He gave the slogan, “Freedom is my birth right and I shall have it”. He was part of famous trio—Bal, Pal, Lal. His writings remain immortal and will continue to inspire Indians for centuries. Article 51A(b) of the Constitution makes it the constitutional duty of every citizen “to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom”. In the 75th year of Independence, which is being observed as “Azadi ka amritmahotsva”, let us consider the jurisprudential significance of the words of Tilak.

The trial of Tilak in 1908 was on the charge of sedition due to an article of his in The Kesari. It was about the rather repressive measures adopted by Her Majesty’s government in response to rising cases of bomb violence. In fact, the first article on May 19, 1908, was a commentary on the incident in which Subhas Chandra Bose threw a bomb on the carriage of what he believed was carrying Magistrate Douglas Kingford. Unfortunately, the target of the bomb was in another carriage and two British women were killed.

Tilak, in his trademark voice, called such repressive measures “A Country’s Misfortune”. This was followed by another article titled These Remedies Are not Long Lasting on June 9, 1908. Her Majesty’s government, ever in thrall of itself, could hardly permit such “disaffection” to be spread, especially in a newspaper that had a circulation of 6,000 or so.

During the trial itself, Tilak chose to represent himself. Records of the trial show that his defence was not only formidable, but put to the sword the very provisions that he was sought to be convicted under. In fact, commentators have stated that the second trial of Tilak, though ostensibly titled Emperor vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak, was actually Tilak vs Colonial Legal Order. The trial records reveal that the jury was unable to unanimously agree and the split was 7:2. In fact, Davar J felt compelled to speak rather harshly through his judgment, calling the articles something that only a perverse or diseased mind could encourage. In response to this, Tilak stated the words that are now immortally written in stone.

It is significant that Tilak presented to the nation a selfless idea, so selfless that even when being sentenced to transportation to Mandalay, he saw it as a victory. Today, there is talk of repeal of the sedition law. It is well known that judgment in Tilak’s case (1898) which was approved by the Privy Council, has since been reversed by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar, 1962 as being against Article 19(1)(a).

Another significant aspect is infallibility of the justice dispensation and recognising that there are “higher powers that rule the destiny of men and nations” which need not in any manner be taken as a rejection of the system of justice dispensation. This is also reflected in the emblem of the Supreme Court—“Yato dharma tatojay (Righteous is victorious)”. This means that victory is not being confined merely to winning or losing a case but in being righteous and the Court’s endeavour constantly is to uphold righteousness. This is the foundation of “Dharam Rajya”—rule of righteousness. Let our jurisprudence be inspired by righteousness, inspired by immortal words of Tilak, our greatest revolutionary leader.

Author is an Advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. Currently, the author is also functioning as Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI and Additional Advocate General for the States of Karnataka and Haryana.

The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the Centre and the State Bank of India in a plea filed by the widowed daughter-in-law of a freedom fighter seeking release of life-time arrears which were not paid to her deceased mother-in-law on account of discrepancies in pension records. 

Justice Rekha Palli has issued notice to the Centre and State Bank of India. The plea has been filed by one Suman, the daughter-in-law of late Kalawati Devi and late Manohar Singh, who had served in the Indian National Army (NIA) popularly known as the Azad Hind Fauj. After the death of her father, her mother was getting pension since 1972 and the benefit of pension was extended w.r.f. 01.08.1980 to all freedom fighters under the scheme, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.

According to the plea, it was not disputed that after the death of Manohar Singh, his widow Kalawati Devi was getting the pension under the said scheme but in 2015, her pension was stopped without assigning any reason to her. Being illiterate and aged about 90 years, she kept waiting for it but nothing ever happened. 

Justice Rekha Palli was of the prima-facie opinion that the unpaid pension be provided to the legal heirs. On June 10, the Home Ministry rejected the petitioner’s application to release the Life Time Arrears (LTA) of Kalawati Devi without assigning any reason.

According to the petition, Manohar Singh was the freedom fighter pursuant to his participation in the INA and was provided pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme since 15.08.1972 vide PPO No.4327/FF/CR, which was transferred to Kalawati Devi upon his death.

The petition avers that from February 2015, Kalawati Dev’s pension was suddenly stopped without assigning any reason and that too without any notice or prior intimation to her and whenever she had visited the concerned Bank, the officials concerned replied that pension has been stopped from the ministry but no such order passed by the Ministry was ever been given to her in this regard.

The petition further avers that, later it was found that the pension was withheld due to misprint of the name of the Late Manohar Singh (Freedom Fighter) on the Aadhaar Card as Monbor Singh name was printed on the Aadhaar Card instead of Manohar Singh.  Even after rectifying the above mentioned error and submitting several representations before the Home Ministry, the arrears were not paid.

According to the petition, Kalawati Devi along with her son Basu Ram have expired and the surviving daughter-in law has sought the release of Life Time Arrears(LTA) of Kalawati Devi. The petition has been filed by Mahesh Tiwari and has been listed for further arguments on February 2, 2022.

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to grant pension under the “Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme’, to the widow daughter of a freedom fighter, who is also physically disabled and mentally-challenged.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao set aside the order dated February 12, 2020, wherein the Central Government refused to grant pension to the widow, stating that she is ineligible in terms of Clause 5.2.5 of the Pension Scheme.

Reliance was placed on the decisions by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as well as the Calcutta High Court in “Khazani Devi vs Union of India and Ors,” and “Sonali Hatua Giri vs Union of India and Ors,” respectively, wherein Clause 5.2.5 of the Pension Scheme was interpreted to include within its ambit widowed or divorced daughters.

The Bench observed: “I concur with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Calcutta High Court, more particularly when the very same clause under which the benefit is sought to be denied by the respondents to the petitioner, was considered for granting relief to widowed daughters.”

In this regard, the Bench directed that upon satisfaction of other conditions, her case for grant of dependent family pension be considered, within a period of eight weeks.

The Government of India, in 1972, framed a scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their families as a token of ‘Samman’ to the freedom fighters. The benefit of the scheme, which came into effect from August 1, 1980, was also extended to father of petitioner Kolli Indira Kumari, late K. Appa Rao.

Also Read: Delhi High Court to take up Mehbooba Mufti’s challenge to constitutional validity of PMLA tomorrow

Rao passed away in 2019, leaving behind his widowed daughter, Indira Kumari, who is bed-ridden, physically and mentally challenged, and was solely dependent upon her deceased father. She moved an application before the concerned bank, requesting for disbursal of freedom fighter pension to her.

However, on February 12, 2020, the Central Government, through a communication, rejected her request, in terms of Para 5.2.5 of the revised policy guidelines on the Pension Scheme, stating that widowed or divorced daughter is not eligible for pension.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that in cases of freedom fighters who have not been granted pension during their lifetime, their dependants will still be entitled to pension. In cases of deceased freedom fighters, their eligible dependant would be entitled to pension from the date on which they apply for such pension before the authorities

The High Court passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Kamla Devi along with other widows of freedom fighters who were not granted pension when they were alive.

The petition was filed to pray for directions to be issued the Central Government and the State government to firstly grant pension to the petitioner’s deceased husbands and then to the petitioners, according to how the grant of pension had been made to other employees who were similarly placed.

The husband of the main petitioner Kamla Devi had joined Ist Bahwalpur Infantry as a sepoy and served in the Punjab Regiment before he was discharged in 1946. He passed away on August 28, 1992.

When the petitioner, being his wife, applied for the freedom fighters’ pension under the ‘Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980’,in 2013 her case was neither processed by the Haryana Government, nor was it sent to the Union of India.

When the petitioner moved the High Court with her petition the Central and the State government contended that petitioner’s husband had never applied for pension under the scheme, and the petitioner should not have taken 25 years after her husband’s death to approach the Court.

A single bench presided by Justice Suvir Sehgal, held that in case of deceased freedom fighters ,their eligible dependants would be entitled to pension, and directed that Government of Haryana to verify facts of the petitioner’s application and forward it to the Union Government which has been directed to consider the release of pension with arrears at 9% rate of interest ,within four weeks.