Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
Damu Punjaji Shejul - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 6570, 6577 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2022
Schemes - Claims for freedom fighter's pension - One talks of freedom fighters normal image that comes to one's mind is a person who had suffered physically and mentally for unshackling chains of foreign rule in our country - Normal reaction when one sees such person is one of reverence, regard and respect - Brave courageous deeds of these persons is a distinctive part of India's fight for freedom - Many persons lost their lives, many were injured and large number of such persons had languished in jails for various periods - Common thread which must have passed through minds of these people is their sole objective to see that their motherland has a government of its own, free from foreign rule - But these images get shattered when one hears that with a view to gain financially, vague documents have been produced, false claims of participation in freedom movement have been made - Whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill-will towards the other is immaterial – Held, Court find that first affiant was in prison for around 7 months and therefore he was not competent to issue an affidavit - Second affiant, who claimed to have suffered imprisonment for 2 years and 5 months by way of punishment, was expected to place documents as prescribed by the Government Resolution alongwith his affidavit. No such document has been placed on record and therefore the said affidavit also cannot be considered - One lady died because of firing and these 3000 persons were arrested - Petitioner before Court tells us that he was never arrested, never taken into custody by Police, apparently he did not suffer any bullet injury and though 3000 persons were arrested and he is said to be a part of them, there is no record of he being arrested - Petition is dismissed.
Certainly. Here are the key points based on the provided legal document:
The scheme for granting freedom fighter pensions was introduced with the objective of honoring genuine freedom fighters who sacrificed for independence, often involving physical suffering, imprisonment, or other hardships (!) (!) .
The scheme's purpose is to reward those who truly participated in the freedom struggle, and it is not intended to be exploited by individuals producing false or vague documents or making bogus claims (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes the importance of verifying claims through proper documentation, such as affidavits, official certificates, arrest warrants, and imprisonment records, to establish participation in the freedom movement (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlights that affidavits alone, especially when inconsistent or unsupported by documentary evidence, are insufficient to prove participation in the freedom movement (!) (!) (!) .
The Court notes that many claims are based on affidavits that contain discrepancies, contradictions, or uncorroborated statements, which raises doubts about their authenticity and the genuineness of the claims (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court underscores that claims of being underground or living away from home are not enough without supporting evidence such as arrest warrants, newspaper reports, or official records indicating detention or participation (!) (!) (!) .
The Court observes that applicants who have previously had their claims rejected and then refiled after long delays or with altered statements are likely attempting to manipulate the system, which is inconsistent with the scheme's purpose (!) (!) .
The Court stresses that strict scrutiny and verification are necessary, especially given past instances of fraud, false affidavits, and the Justice Palkar Commission's findings of infirmities and irregularities in claims (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes that the verification process must be thorough, and affidavits from other freedom fighters or certificates alone are not sufficient without supporting documentary evidence (!) (!) .
The Court concludes that claims based solely on affidavits, especially when inconsistent or unsupported by corroborative evidence, are likely fabricated or manipulated, and thus, such claims should be rejected to prevent abuse of the scheme (!) (!) .
The Court indicates that procedural delays, such as filing claims after long periods or after rejection orders, and attempts to obtain documents via RTI or other means, should not override the need for genuine verification (!) (!) .
The Court reiterates that the scheme is meant to honor true freedom fighters, and any attempt to exploit it through false claims undermines the integrity of the scheme and disrespects genuine sacrifices (!) (!) .
The Court directs the authorities to compile and review affidavits and supporting documents of claimants for further examination, emphasizing the importance of accuracy and authenticity in the verification process (!) .
Overall, the Court maintains a cautious approach, prioritizing the integrity of the scheme and ensuring that only those with credible and verifiable evidence of participation in the freedom struggle are granted pension benefits (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this document.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. In these 2 matters wherein the petitioners have made claims for freedom fighter's pension, our conscience is disturbed while considering the factors that emerged. It would therefore be apposite to begin this judgment with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2005 AIR SCW 4094]. The Hon'ble Court has recorded in paragraph No.2 as under:-
2. The Policy of the State Government brought into effect through the Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 thereby introducing freedom fighter's pension scheme, is undoubtedly a laudable scheme with the object of honouring those persons who have sacrificed their lives or their freedom and liberty and have suffered atrocities at the hands of the oppressors. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India [2001 AIR SC 3883] as under:-
3. It goes without saying that such schemes are aimed to reward genuine freedom fighters who deserved to be treated with respect, honour and reverence. At the same time, as has been held in Bhaurao (supra), it cannot be ignored that people who had not played any role in the freedom struggle should not be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be adopted in granting freedom fighters pension, most of whom in the normal course are in their late 70's or 80's. It baffles one, beyond comprehension, when claims are made by the persons who were not even born during the freedom struggle, under the pretense of being freedom fighters. The persons who are masquerading as freedom fighters, are actually traitors.
4. With regard to such bogus freedom fighters committing fraud on the system, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph Nos.10 to 20 in Bhaurao (supra) as under:-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
