Introduction:
In a significant and compassionate ruling, the Madras High Court reaffirmed that a divorced daughter, who is in impoverished circumstances, is entitled to be recognized as a dependent eligible to receive the Freedom Fighters’ Pension. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan delivered the judgment in the case Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary and Others (2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 405), adopting the view of the Supreme Court in Khajani Devi’s case, where the apex court had emphasized that pensions under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and other similar family pension schemes were designed to honor the sacrifices and sufferings of India’s freedom fighters and to ensure that their dependents live a life of dignity. The High Court underscored that a narrow or demeaning interpretation of such welfare schemes would defeat their noble purpose and dishonor the spirit of the freedom struggle.
The case concerned a woman, the daughter of late freedom fighter Shanmuga Thevar, who had served in the Indian National Army under the leadership of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose during the struggle for India’s independence. The petitioner’s father had actively participated in the freedom movement in Burma, where he was imprisoned in Rangoon Jail for six months. Upon his release, the family’s financial condition deteriorated, compelling them to return to India. After her father’s demise, the petitioner’s mother was granted a pension by both the Central and State Governments in recognition of her husband’s contribution to India’s freedom. Following her mother’s death, the petitioner approached the authorities seeking the transfer of the pension to her name, asserting that she was entitled to it as a dependent daughter of the deceased freedom fighter. However, when her request was denied by the authorities, she filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court seeking relief.
Arguments Presented Before the Court:
On behalf of the petitioner, Counsel A.P. Surya Prakasam and N. Abiragan argued that the denial of pension was unjustified and contrary to the object and spirit of the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme. They submitted that the petitioner was a divorced woman living in impoverished circumstances and had no independent source of income. The counsel pointed out that the petitioner had been residing with her mother until her death and was fully dependent on her for sustenance. It was further submitted that after her divorce from her husband, a Singapore citizen, the petitioner had returned to India and lived with her mother in dire financial conditions. Her two children continued to reside with her former husband abroad, and she was left without any economic or familial support.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme was a welfare measure introduced by the government to honor the sacrifices of freedom fighters and to ensure the well-being of their dependents. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Khajani Devi v. Union of India, where the Court had categorically held that a divorced daughter in financial distress should be treated as a dependent eligible to receive family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. They contended that the present case was factually similar and thus squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court.
It was emphasized that the purpose of the pension scheme was not merely to provide monetary relief but to uphold the dignity of those who had contributed to India’s independence and their families. The counsel contended that adopting a narrow and restrictive interpretation of the term “dependent” would defeat the very purpose of the scheme. The petitioner had already been recognized as eligible for a State pension by the Tamil Nadu Government through a previous court order, which observed that she fulfilled the necessary criteria. Therefore, it was only just and equitable that the Central Government extend the same benefit to her under the central scheme.
Conversely, Counsel for the Union of India, Deputy Solicitor General M/s R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the Central Government’s pension scheme. The counsel submitted that under the scheme, a daughter could be considered a dependent only if two conditions were satisfied: first, she must not have any independent source of income, and second, she must not be married. The counsel contended that the petitioner, having been married earlier and being a mother of two children, did not fall within the definition of “unmarried dependent daughter” as prescribed under the scheme. It was argued that divorce did not revive her status as an “unmarried daughter” for the purposes of pension eligibility.
The Deputy Solicitor General further relied on precedents dealing with compassionate appointments, where courts had held that a married daughter could not claim benefits reserved for dependents of government servants. Drawing a parallel, he argued that the same reasoning should apply to the pension scheme in question. The counsel thus contended that the petitioner’s plea should be rejected as she did not qualify as a dependent under the scheme and was therefore ineligible to receive the pension.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, after hearing the parties and examining the records, observed that the issue had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Khajani Devi’s case, where the apex court held that the object of the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Schemes was to honor and support the families of those who had made sacrifices for the country. The Court emphasized that such schemes must be interpreted liberally and not in a manner that deprives the dependents of freedom fighters of their rightful benefits.
Justice Lakshminarayanan observed that judicial discipline required him to follow the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and that there was no need to distinguish the present case from Khajani Devi. He quoted: “When the Supreme Court has spoken, judicial discipline requires that I adopt the same view and not attempt to distinguish the same, as sought to be done by the learned Deputy Solicitor General.” The judge noted that the factual matrix of the present case was strikingly similar to that in Khajani Devi, where the petitioner, also a divorced daughter, had been allowed to receive her father’s pension in recognition of her dependent status and financial hardship.
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the petitioner’s earlier marriage disqualified her from being treated as a dependent. It held that the condition of being “unmarried” must be read in the context of the object of the scheme, which is to ensure that dependents in distress are supported. Once a daughter is divorced and rendered dependent, she reverts to the same status of dependency as an unmarried daughter who lacks financial independence. To deny such a person the pension would be contrary to the humanitarian spirit and the benevolent purpose of the scheme.
Justice Lakshminarayanan further clarified that precedents relating to compassionate appointments could not be invoked to deny pension benefits under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, as the two serve entirely different purposes. Compassionate appointments are governed by employment rules that operate within the service framework, whereas the Freedom Fighters’ Pension is an act of gratitude by the nation toward those who fought for independence. “The pension is being granted by the Union of India in recognition of the hardship that had been undergone by freedom fighters during the independence movement. To compare such hardship with compassionate appointment, in my view, would not be appropriate,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order denying pension to the petitioner and directed the authorities to process her claim. The Union Government was instructed to forward the petitioner’s papers to the State Government of Tamil Nadu, which was directed to conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner was living in impoverished circumstances and had indeed been dependent on her parents during their lifetime. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the Central Government was directed to issue appropriate orders granting the pension to the petitioner from the date of her application. The entire process was to be completed within eight weeks.
This judgment stands as a reaffirmation of judicial compassion and the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the dignity of those connected to India’s independence movement. By extending the meaning of “dependent” to include a divorced daughter living in financial hardship, the Court preserved the underlying spirit of gratitude embedded in the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Schemes. The ruling not only upholds constitutional values of equality and social justice but also ensures that the sacrifices of freedom fighters continue to be honored through fair and humane interpretation of welfare laws.