Supreme Court of India

SHAKUNTLA DEVIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: 2005 INSC 466
Decided: 3 October 2005
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: R C LAHOTIG P MATHURP K BALASUBRAMANYAN

Holding

The Supreme Court held that freedom‑fighter pension claims are not within its jurisdiction under Article 32 and should be addressed by the High Court.

Summary

The petitioner, Shakuntla Devi, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a pension as a freedom fighter, alleging that the State Government had not recommended her claim to the Central Government. The petition was presented before the Supreme Court, with Madan Mohan Rai (her husband) and a legal aid counsel representing her. The Court examined the petition and observed that similar cases involving freedom‑fighter pension claims have been routinely dealt with by High Courts rather than the Supreme Court. It held that such grievances do not fall within the ambit of Article 32 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that filing directly before this Court should be discouraged. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court.

Issues considered

Whether a claim for freedom‑fighter pension can be entertained by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a grievance, or should it be dealt with by the High Court.

Subjects

Article 32Writ petitionSupreme Court jurisdictionFreedom fighters pensionHigh Court jurisdictionConstitutional law

Judgment

A                               SHAKUNTLA DEVI
                                          v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                                 OCTOBER 3,2005

B              [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., AND G.P. MATHUR AND P.K.
                        BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]


          Constitution of lndia,1950:

c         Article 32-Freedom Fighters Pension-Claimed in writ petition-Held,
    the case does not call for consideration in exercise of jurisdiction under
    Article 32-Such matters, wherever the petitioners have a genuine grievance,
    can better be dealt with by the High Court-Filing of such petitions in this
    Court directly by invoking Article 32 ofthe Constitution has to be discouraged.
D         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of2005.

          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

          Madan Mohan Rai, Husband of the Petitioner, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi,
E (SCLSC) for the Petitioner.
          The following Order of the Court was delivered:

                                          ORDER

        We have heard Mr. Madan Mohan Rai who states that he is the husband
F of the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2005 Mrs. K. Sarada
  Devi, Adovcate has been appointed as legal aid counsel for the petitioner.
  She has also been heard by us.

        We have also perused the contents of the writ petition and the documents
G annexed therewith. We are satisfied that the case does not call for consideration
  in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

           We are constrained to observe that a number of cases are being filed
    in this Court wherein the petitioners claim themselves to be freedom fighters
    and hence entitled to pension under a scheme framed by the Central
H                                        950
                        SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. U.0.1.                         951
Government. In most of these cases, the State Governments have found the A
petitioners' not entitled to the grant of such pension and, therefore, their
cases have not been recommended by the State Governments to the Central
Government. By filing petitions under Articles 32 of the Constitution before
this Court the State Governments are being noticed to appear and show cause
here and also to produce the relevant documents. We feel that such matters,
wherever the petitioners have a genuine grievance, can better be dealt with B
by the High Court. Filing of such petitions in this Court directly by invoking
Article 32 of the Constitution has to be discouraged.

     The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an
appropriate petition in the High Court, if so advised.                          C
R.P.                                                Writ Petition dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Article 32"Sign in to search