2005 (8) TMI 661 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the grant of benefits to such phantoms masquerading to be freedom fighters? Whether the pensionary benefits be cancelled to see the number of persons falsely claiming to be freedom fighters?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of false claims for Freedom Fighters' Pension.
2. Validity of the High Court's judgment dismissing the writ petitions.
3. Examination of the Enquiry Committee's findings.
4. Legal implications of fraud in the context of public law.

Detailed Analysis:

Allegations of False Claims:
The appeals addressed allegations that numerous individuals in the Beed District of Maharashtra falsely claimed and received benefits under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. The writ petitions, filed in public interest, highlighted that many claimants were not even born during the freedom struggle or were of tender age at that time. It was alleged that these individuals submitted forged, false, and fabricated documents to receive pensionary benefits intended for genuine freedom fighters.

Validity of the High Court's Judgment:
The High Court's judgment dismissed the writ petitions challenging the grant of benefits to the alleged fake freedom fighters. The High Court took five sample cases and concluded that the documents produced were sufficient to substantiate the claims, thus dismissing the writ petitions. The High Court also held that the petitions filed as 'Public Interest Litigation' were not genuinely so and that the Enquiry Committee's findings could not override the initial grant of pensions.

Examination of the Enquiry Committee's Findings:
The Enquiry Committee, constituted by the High Court, found that out of 3000 applications, 354 were ineligible for the pension. The High Court, however, dismissed the Committee's report based on its examination of five sample cases. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that sampling cannot determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations. Each case needed individual examination to ascertain the validity of the claims.

Legal Implications of Fraud:
The Supreme Court emphasized that fraud, defined as an intentional perversion of truth to induce another to part with something valuable, vitiates every solemn act. Fraud involves deceit and injury, leading to deprivation of property or other harm. The Court cited several precedents, including Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, to highlight that genuine freedom fighters deserve respect and honor, but fraudulent claims undermine the scheme's integrity. The Court reiterated that fraud in public law differs from fraud in private law, emphasizing that fraudulent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts amount to fraud.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court appointed Mr. Justice A.B. Palkar, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, to re-examine the 354 cases. The Commission was tasked to verify the claims within four months and report to the State Government for necessary action. The Commission was to be paid emoluments equivalent to a sitting Judge of the High Court, with expenses borne by the State Government. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals with no order as to costs, underscoring the need for thorough individual examination of each claim to uphold the scheme's integrity and prevent fraudulent benefits.