Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 117 (PAT)

Ravi Shankar Kumar Akela v. State of Bihar

2014-01-24

NAVIN SINHA, VIKASH JAIN

body2014
JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Principal Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. 2. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks quashing of Memo No. N/Home Treasury-74/09/2009-111 Patna dated 05.06.2009 framing the J.P. Senani Samman Yojna with effect from 01.06.2009. The scheme provides that persons who had undergone imprisonment under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and the Defence of India Rules, under the leadership of Late Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Narayan between the period from 18.03.1974 to 21.03.1977 would be given a monthly pension of Rs. 2500/- to those who may have remained in custody up to six months or were injured in police firing and Rs. 5000/- to the widow of those who may have died in police firing or during custody under the aforesaid laws. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agitation itself was unjustified. Chaos ruled. Students and anti social elements were mixed up with looting and burning of buses, shops etc. Calling students to boycott classes was unjustified. An elected Prime Minister was forced to resign. The entire agitation was aimed at unseating the Congress Party at the center as well as at the State level. There were diverse opinions with regard to the imposition of emergency that followed. Certain journalists had opined that both Late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Late Jay Prakash Narayan must bear the blame for events that followed equally. But, without going into the nature of the agitation, undoubtedly it had political overtones against a single political party. A political party supporting another ideology cannot frame the pension scheme to further its own political interests at the expense of the public exchequer. 4. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General submitted that developments leading to the imposition of the emergency were a watershed in the history of the nation and led to much Constitutional amendments including the 42nd and 44th amendments. The course of events left a starkling impact not only on the history of the nation but also a beacon for the future of democracy in the country. There are no allegations that any ineligible has been granted benefits. 5. We have considered the submissions. The scheme framed for payment of pension is a policy decision of the Government. The course of events left a starkling impact not only on the history of the nation but also a beacon for the future of democracy in the country. There are no allegations that any ineligible has been granted benefits. 5. We have considered the submissions. The scheme framed for payment of pension is a policy decision of the Government. The limits for judicial review will have to be circumscribed by test on principles of arbitrariness, gross illegality, irrationality, lack of classification. The policy is limited to persons who participated in events leading to the imposition of emergency and during it. The benefit has not been granted to all and sundry. It is limited to those who underwent custody for at least six months or suffered injuries during police firing, died in custody during protests or in police firing. In our opinion the classification is neither absurd or irrational. It is based on an object to be achieved by recognising those who underwent sufferings either directly or by their families for protection of democratic principles. Proper notifications have been issued for applying in the prescribed format with conditions of eligibility and scrutiny of the same before grant. 6. Undoubtedly events during the emergency have been a watershed in the history of the nation leading to important constitutional amendments commencing with the 42nd and 44th amendments. The petitioner in his affidavit states that he was about 32 years on 29.06.2009. He was therefore born in 1977. Obviously, he has to be practically unaware with regard to the realities of the nation at that point of time. The pleadings of the writ application reflect the subjective opinion of the petitioner in a post analysis possibly on basis of his political leanings. Arsonists may have been opportunist in miniscule will not make the policy itself bad. In response to our query, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledged that similar scheme did exist in more than one other State of the Indian union. 7. In C.W.J.C. No.1004 of 2012 (Alakhdeo Sao alias Alakh Niranjan v. State of Bihar) disposed on 14.08.2012, a learned single Judge has already given directions to consider the claim for grant of pension under the Scheme. The Court did not find the Scheme to be unconstitutional based on a policy decision otherwise mandamus would not have been issued. The Public Interest Litigation is held to be frivolous. It is dismissed. The Court did not find the Scheme to be unconstitutional based on a policy decision otherwise mandamus would not have been issued. The Public Interest Litigation is held to be frivolous. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.