The Supreme Court has restored the freedom fighters' pension (Samman Nidhi) to Sushila Tripathi, the widow of late freedom fighter Ramakant Tripathi, holding that authorities must adopt a practical and considerate approach while examining such claims instead of insisting on strict documentary proof of events that took place decades ago.

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench judgment that had rejected her claim on the grounds of delay, laches and estoppel.

The Court restored the order passed by the High Court's Single Judge directing the State government to grant pension to Sushila Tripathi with effect from April 6, 1991, along with 6% interest.

The bench observed that the freedom fighters' pension scheme is neither a bounty nor an act of charity but a recognition of the nation's gratitude towards those who fought for its independence. It emphasised that such claims must be assessed on the basis of probabilities rather than the strict standards of proof applied in criminal proceedings.

The Court further observed that elderly claimants cannot be expected to produce documents relating to events that occurred nearly half a century ago. It noted that jail registers, police records and official gazettes are maintained by the State, and therefore, authorities must take responsibility for tracing such records.

"The claimant comes before the authority as one to whom something is owed, not as a supplicant seeking a favour," the bench observed.

The case arose from Sushila Tripathi's claim that her late husband had participated in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement of 1945-46 and had remained imprisoned in Maihar Jail for 25 days.

Her husband's application for Samman Nidhi under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Rules, 1972, was rejected by the State government through an order dated April 6, 1991, without assigning any reasons.

Following her husband's death in 2016, Sushila approached the District Collector seeking the pension. However, the Collector and subsequently the State government rejected her claim, compelling her to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in her favour and directed the State to release the pension. However, a Division Bench overturned the decision, prompting Sushila to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court.

Allowing her appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the District Freedom Fighters List maintained by the Collector itself recorded her husband's participation in the 1945-46 Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement and his imprisonment in 1946.

The bench held that the Division Bench had failed to consider material evidence establishing her husband's eligibility for the pension. It also rejected the State's objection regarding delay and laches.

The Court further emphasised that the manner in which authorities receive, examine and decide pension claims forms an integral part of the recognition extended under the scheme. It observed that a delayed, indifferent or hypertechnical approach undermines the honour that the scheme seeks to confer, even when the pension is eventually granted.

Case Title: Sushila Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.