Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchWrit Petition dismissed.

SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Case / Petition Number:Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2005
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • R.C. Lahoti
  • G.P. Mathur
  • P.K. Balasubramanyan
Judgment Date
2005-10-03
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file an appropriate petition in the High Court, if advised.
Final Disposition
Writ Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shakuntla Devi

Respondents

  • Union of India
  • Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Mrs. K. Sarada Devi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shakuntla Devi v. Union of India and Anr. is a Supreme Court case in the Civil Original Jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Shakuntla Devi, sought a pension under a central scheme for freedom fighters, asserting entitlement and invoking the constitutional remedy under Article 32. The Court perused the writ petition and the annexed documents, with Madan Mohan Rai appearing and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi appointed as legal aid counsel for the petitioner. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justices G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan, stated that the matter does not call for consideration by this Court under Article 32. It noted a pattern of petitions by individuals claiming to be freedom fighters and seeking pension, with state governments often finding such claims ineligible and not recommending them to the central government. The Court emphasized that, wherever petitioners have a genuine grievance, such matters can be dealt with by the High Court, which can assess records under appropriate writs. Filing petitions under Article 32 directly before this Court is to be discouraged. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition in the High Court if advised. The decision clarifies that Article 32 remedies are not a substitute for appropriate High Court remedies in pension-claim cases and preserves the constitutional remedy for true grievances.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 32, Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

/null

Contentions of Respondents

/null

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

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 D _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 of the Constitution has to be discouraged._ 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. H 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 950 SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. U.0.1. 951 Government. In most of these cases, the State Governments have found the 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 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. R.P. Writ Petition dismissed.