Fictitious claims need to be handled firmly based on their merits. It is important to ensure that genuine freedom fighters are not harmed: Karnataka High Court.
The Karnataka High Court stated that false claims made by individuals pretending to be freedom fighters need to be addressed firmly, ensuring that genuine freedom fighters are not harmed in the process. This comment came during a Writ Petition from someone who claimed to have participated in the freedom struggle, including the Rajupet Sathyagraha Camp in Andhra Pradesh. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, explained that according to the law established by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it is crucial to protect the rights of real freedom fighters while also rigorously examining any fraudulent claims.
Senior Advocate G. Papi Reddy represented the Petitioner, while AGA Bhojegowda T. Koller and Advocate K. Prasanna Shetty represented the Respondents. The Petitioner asserted that he was a freedom fighter involved in the Rajupet Sathyagraha Camp and the Mysuru Palace Chalo Sathyagrahis Movement in 1947. He was imprisoned in Kolar sub-jail during September and October 1947. In 1981, he applied for and received a state political pension under the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters Welfare Rules, 1969. He later obtained certificates from a fellow prisoner (M.V. Venkatappa), Members of Parliament, and Members of the Legislative Assembly. The State Government approved a monthly honorarium of Rs. 100/- after thorough review. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a complaint claiming that the Petitioner falsely obtained the honorarium using forged documents.
The complaint was sent to the Karnataka Lokayukta, which led to an investigation by the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District. The Petitioner received a show-cause notice and provided explanations along with supporting documents. The Tahsildar of Mulbagal Taluk then issued a notice requiring the Petitioner to repay Rs. 9,08,661/- by May 30, 2019. Unsatisfied with this, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition, which was considered premature but allowed for future challenges. He aimed to cancel the recovery notice and its attachments, arguing that there was no jurisdiction under Section 8(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The High Court stated that accepting such applications without proof of participation in the freedom struggle, which had already been investigated, was not wrong.
The Court also mentioned that if these applications were accepted, the scheme could turn into a reward system, leaving genuine contributors without recognition. It emphasized that the principles set by the Supreme Court regarding freedom fighters’ pensions were meant to ensure that no true freedom fighter is denied their pension. Accepting the Petitioner’s claim would misuse the scheme, the Court noted. Therefore, it concluded that the Petitioner did not present a valid case for the Writ as requested, leading to the dismissal of the Petition due to insufficient evidence to support his claims. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: M.V. Srinivasa Gowda v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate G. Papi Reddy and Advocate Varun Papi Reddy.
Respondents: AGA Bhojegowda T. Koller and Advocate K. Prasanna Shetty.
