The Madras High Court ruled that the Freedom Fighters’ Pension is a symbol of national recognition for sacrifices made during India’s independence struggle, not a welfare scheme or employment benefit, granting justice to a deserving divorced daughter.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: In a ruling, the Madras High Court has held that freedom fighters’ pensions cannot be equated with government schemes for compassionate employment, emphasizing that the pension is a recognition of the sacrifices made during India’s freedom struggle, not a form of welfare or charity.
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan made this observation while overturning the Central Government’s decision to deny the transfer of a deceased freedom fighter’s pension to his divorced daughter. The Court ruled that divorced daughters, who are dependent on their parents, are entitled to receive the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension.
The Court clarified that the freedom fighters’ pension is granted by the Union of India in recognition of the hardships endured by freedom fighters during the independence movement.
“To compare such hardship with compassionate appointment, in my view, would not be appropriate,”
the judge stated.
Justice Lakshminarayanan stressed that compassionate appointments arise out of financial distress due to the death of a government servant, whereas pensions to freedom fighters are honorary and symbolic gestures acknowledging their sacrifice for the nation.
The Central Government had argued that divorced or widowed daughters are not eligible to receive the freedom fighters’ pension, citing 2014 guidelines issued by the Union Home Ministry. However, the Court rejected this stance, observing that the cited precedents only applied to compassionate employment cases, not to pensions under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
Justice Lakshminarayanan referred to a 2019 Supreme Court judgment, which approved a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling equating the condition of unmarried and divorced dependent daughters.
“The Supreme Court has categorically held that the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is a progressive and socially constructive approach, treating divorced daughters on par with unmarried daughters,”
the judge noted.
He added that judicial discipline requires following the Supreme Court’s precedent without distinction.
Case Background
The petitioner is the daughter of Shanmuga Thevar, a freedom fighter who served in the Indian National Army (INA) led by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Thevar was imprisoned by British authorities in Rangoon Jail, Burma, for six months during India’s struggle for independence.
After his release, the Thevar family faced severe hardship and later moved to India, where both the Central and Tamil Nadu governments sanctioned freedom fighter pensions for the family. Thevar’s wife continued to receive the pension until her death at age 85.
Following her mother’s death, the petitioner applied for the transfer of the pension to her name in January 2023, citing her dependence on her mother after a divorce and ongoing health and financial difficulties. However, the Centre rejected her application in July 2023, prompting her to approach the High Court.
ALSO READ: Judiciary Exists for Citizens, Judges Are No More Feudal Lords: CJI BR Gavai
High Court’s Order
On October 22, 2025, Justice Lakshminarayanan ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the Central Government to grant her the pension within eight weeks from the date of the order.
“The petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of her application, i.e., from 27.01.2023,”
the Court ordered.
The judge also cited a similar ruling delivered by another single-judge Bench in December 2024, which had recognized the petitioner’s eligibility for the State Government’s pension as well.
“She requires that support not because of her individual capacity but in recognition of the sacrifices made by both parents,”
the earlier order had stated.
Appearance:
The petitioner: Advocates AP Surya Prakasam and N Abiragan
The Central government: Deputy Solicitor General of India R Rajesh Vivekananthan
Case Title:
Thillai Lokanathan v. Deputy Secretary, MHA
WP No. 29353 of 2025
READ ORDER
