Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 10 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Shakuntla Devi
RESPONDENT:
Union of India and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/2005
BENCH:
R.C. Lahoti CJ & G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ORDER
We have heard Mr. Madan Mohan Rai who states that he is the husband of the
petitioner herein. Pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2005 Mrs. K. Sarada
Devi, Adovcate has been appointed as legal aid counsel for the petitioner.
She has also been heard by us.
We have also perused the contents of the writ petition and the documents
annexed therewith. We are satisfied that the case does not call for
consideration in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
We are constrained to observe that a number of cases are being filed in
this Court wherein the petitioners claim themselves to be freedom fighters
and hence entitled to pension under a scheme framed by the Central
Government. In most of these cases, the State Governments have found the
petitioners’ not entitled to the grant of such pension and, therefore,
their cases have not been recommended by the State Governments to the
Central Government. By filing petitions under Articles 32 of the
Constitution before this Court the State Governments are being noticed to
appear and show cause here and also to produce the relevant documents. We
feel that such matters, wherever the petitioners have a genuine grievance,
can better be dealt with by the High Court. Filing of such petitions in
this Court directly by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution has to be
discouraged.
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an
appropriate petition in the High Court, if so advised.