After decades of wait, 101-year-old to receive Freedom Fighter's Pension
The court directed the authorities to sanction and disburse the pension to Jena within six weeks of submission of the certified order.
Jena, who had applied for the pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in 1981, approached the court after decades of inaction. He filed a petition seeking the high court's intervention in 2021 after the government rejected his claim citing lack of records and doubts over his age and eligibility.
However, in the July 29 judgement, Justice Mishra noted that Jena had submitted ample documentary evidence, including a 1984 communication from the Ministry of Home Affairs forwarding his application to the state government and a 1989 Home department letter listing him among applicants. The court held that the claim that Jena did not apply before the 1990 deadline was baseless.
On the question of age eligibility-applicants must have been born before 1924, Justice Mishra accepted Jena's 2002 voter list entry, which showed his age as 82. The authenticity of the list had been certified by the deputy collector, and no inquiry was shown to have been conducted on it. The state's allegation of age manipulation was dismissed as speculative and unsubstantiated.
Further, Jena had submitted affidavits from two recognised freedom fighters Khali Pradhan and Manguli Parida, both of whom confirmed his role in the movement. Their credentials and signatures were verified by the district treasury officer, adding weight to Jena's claim.
Justice Mishra emphasised the state's duty to honour freedom fighters and ensure genuine claims are not rejected on trivial grounds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC glare on tree felling for Khasi Hills ropeway
1 2 Guwahati: The High Court of Meghalaya directed the advocate general of the state and the advocate representing the petitioner, who has alleged indiscriminate and large-scale felling of trees in East Khasi Hills district, to visit the ropeway cable car project area in question and file a short report regarding the feasibility and possibility of carrying out afforestation work there. The bench of Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh last week was hearing the petition filed by Geraldine G Shabong. The petition was filed last year. The bench stated that the report filed by the authorities transpires that the deforestation activity was carried out after obtaining due permission from the central govt under the relevant act and rules for the construction of the Shillong Peak Ropeway Cable Car Project at Raid Laban Reserve Forests and Raid Laban Forest by the state tourism department. Senior advocate K Paul, counsel for the petitioner, argued that wherever deforestation occurs, the state govt is enjoined with a duty to effect 'compensatory afforestation'. However, the afforestation result in Meghalaya is the lowest in the country. The court said the main submission of the petitioner's advocate now is that when the central govt has authorised deforestation for the Shillong Peak Ropeway Cable Car Project and such activity was carried out, there should be proper compensatory afforestation in the vicinity of the project rather than in any distant place, to make up any loss of ecological balance or loss in environmental elements. Meanwhile, advocate general A Kumar submitted before the court that the state govt is prepared to carry out afforestation work but problems exist with regard to the availability of land in the subject area. Following this submission, the court directed the advocate general and the petitioner's advocate to visit the subject area and file a report on the feasibility and possibility of carrying out afforestation work around the ropeway cable car project area. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on Aug 14. In a previous order, the court emphasised that trees are very precious to the state, contributing to its natural beauty, environment and ecological balance, and said it would only permit their felling if absolutely necessary for the preservation of life and property.
United News of India
5 hours ago
- United News of India
SC issues notice on challenge to section 9 of Citizenship Act over automatic termination of Indian citizenship
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the automatic termination of Indian citizenship upon the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with a pending case, Dr Radhika Thappeta v. Union of India, which raises a similar issue concerning revocation of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status. The Court also issued notice on an interim application filed by the petitioner seeking protection from being required to renounce Indian citizenship in order to acquire foreign citizenship, while the constitutional challenge to Section 9 is under consideration. The petition was filed by Sanjay Gundlagutta Reddy, a US-based Economics professor of Indian origin, who, despite living in New York for several years, continues to identify as an Indian citizen. He argues that Section 9(1) is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violates fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the right to equality and personal liberty. During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant initially questioned the petitioner's counsel Advocate Warisha Farasat, asking, 'You are an eminent person. But what grievance is there…if you are so keen for Indian citizenship, you surrender the foreign citizenship and get the Indian one?' However, after hearing her submissions including reference to a previous case where the Supreme Court had granted interim relief on similar grounds the Bench agreed to issue notice and listed the matter for hearing after two weeks. Key arguments in the Petition are that Section 9 imposes a 'Hobson's choice' on Indians abroad, either acquire foreign citizenship and lose Indian nationality or retain Indian citizenship at great personal and professional cost. It fails to consider the global mobility and dual loyalty of Indian-origin individuals who maintain cultural and emotional ties with India The provision does not offer any discretionary or adjudicatory mechanism, resulting in automatic cessation of citizenship. The petitioner highlights that non-citizens globally face precarious legal status, with risks of deportation and limited access to rights. The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Yashwant Singh, seeks a reconsideration of India's citizenship framework to better align with contemporary realities of global Indian diaspora. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Indian-origin individuals across the world, particularly in how India defines and regulates its citizenship laws in a globalized era. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
6 hours ago
- United News of India
SC gives Centre final four weeks to frame guidelines for pedestrian footpath safety
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today granted the Union government a final four-week deadline to frame comprehensive guidelines aimed at ensuring the safety and accessibility of footpaths for pedestrians across the country. The court made it clear that if the Centre fails to act within this time, it will intervene directly to do what is necessary with the assistance of legal counsel. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan underscored that the issue goes to the heart of public safety and the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'The instant litigation pertains to the safety of pedestrians,' the court observed, adding that proper, obstruction-free footpaths are essential and must be accessible to persons with disabilities. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, serving as amicus curiae, informed the court that the Centre had not yet formulated the required guidelines. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier constituted a monitoring committee headed by former judge Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre to oversee the implementation of road safety directives, which could begin its task once the guidelines are finalised. On behalf of the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee assured the court that necessary guidelines would be prepared. The court reiterated its earlier directions issued on May 14, 2025, emphasising that the lack of pedestrian walkways is a major cause of road accidents and fatalities. It had asked the states and union territories to frame their own policies to ensure safe, encroachment-free footpaths. The bench highlighted the urgency of the matter, noting that pedestrians are often forced to walk on roads due to absent or poorly maintained sidewalks, thereby increasing their vulnerability. 'This court has already acknowledged that pedestrians' right to safe footpaths is part of the right to life under Article 21,' the bench reaffirmed. It also reminded the Centre of its obligation to place on record its policies concerning pedestrian safety and to establish a National Road Safety Board within the previously granted six-month timeframe. With a firm stance, the bench concluded, 'No further extension will be granted.' UNI SNG RN
