The Supreme Court has held that authorities cannot reject freedom fighters’ pension claims on hypertechnical grounds or insist on strict documentary proof when examining events dating back several decades. The Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe restored a widow’s entitlement to Samman Nidhi after finding that documentary records and certificates from fellow freedom fighters supported her late husband’s participation in the independence movement.
Background
The case, Sushila Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., concerned the pension claim of Sushila Tripathi, whose husband, Late Ramakant Tripathi, participated in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement of 1945–46 and spent 25 days in Maihar Jail.
His application for Samman Nidhi under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Sammannidhi Rules, 1972, was rejected by the State Government on April 6, 1991. After his death in 2016, his wife applied for the pension but the Collector rejected her request, citing the absence of information from villagers and family members about her husband's participation.
The Tehsildar subsequently recommended granting her pension. However, the State Government rejected her representation on March 12, 2019, stating that the Rules did not provide for reconsideration.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Single Judge allowed her writ petition on January 5, 2023, directing the State to grant Samman Nidhi from April 6, 1991, with 6% annual interest. However, a Division Bench reversed that decision on February 14, 2025, holding that the claim was affected by delay and laches.
The Supreme Court examined the purpose of the pension scheme and clarified that freedom fighters' pension is an acknowledgement of national gratitude rather than a financial favour. It also reiterated that claims cannot be assessed using the standards applicable to criminal trials.
The Court observed:
"The standard of proof in a claim seeking freedom fighter’s pension is not that of a criminal trial and the claim has to be adjudicated on the basis of probabilities and a claimant cannot be expected to produce documents of events half a century old."
The Bench further explained that the responsibility of locating historical government records should not be placed entirely on elderly applicants, particularly when such records remain with government authorities.
It stated:
"The approach of the authorities must therefore be practical, having regard to the fact that most of the applications are by old persons with no proper records. And because the State, not the claimant, holds the jail registers, police files and gazettes of the period, the burden of searching them falls on the State."
The Court also emphasised that the pension scheme extends recognition to the families who shared the hardships of freedom fighters. Authorities must therefore examine applications with sensitivity rather than adopting an unnecessarily technical approach.
The Bench noted that Sushila Tripathi had submitted certificates from former legislators and recognised freedom fighters, including Shyamsundar Shyam, Dr. Gaurishankar Shastri, Surya Pratap Gautam and Chintamani Shukla.
These certificates supported her husband's imprisonment and participation in the movement. The District Freedom Fighters List maintained by the Collector also recorded Ramakant Tripathi's participation in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement of 1945–46 and his imprisonment in 1946.
The Court found that the Division Bench had overlooked this material evidence and that rejecting the claim on grounds of delay and laches was untenable.
The Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench's judgment dated February 14, 2025, and restored the Single Judge's order dated January 5, 2023, directing payment of Samman Nidhi from April 6, 1991, with 6% annual interest.
Considering the appellant's age, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to comply with the Single Judge's order within four weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: Sushila Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10321 of 2025
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Decision Date: 5 October 2026
