Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7472 of 2009. Case: Ravi Shankar Kumar Akela Vs The State of Bihar and Others. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7472 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Krishna Kant Singh and Anil Kumar Sinha, Advs. and For Respondents: A.A.G. |
| Judges | Navin Sinha and Vikash Jain, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India |
| Citation | AIR 2014 Pat 61 |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
Navin Sinha, J.
-
We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Principal Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. 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. 2,500/- to those who may have remained in custody up to six months or were injured in police firing and Rs. 5,000/- to the widow of those who may have died in police firing or during custody under the aforesaid laws.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial