The Madras High Court has directed the Union Government to grant pension benefits to a 94-year-old former member of the Indian National Army (INA) who was imprisoned in Rangoon (Myanmar) during the freedom struggle in 1945. The ruling, issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, underscores the importance of a harmonious interpretation of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana schemes in cases involving INA members detained abroad.

The petitioner, RK Venkatachalam, a participant in the Indian Independence League and an INA member, was arrested during a campaign for freedom in Burma and detained in Rangoon jail from May to December 1945. Despite meeting eligibility criteria for the Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana, his claim was initially rejected by the Home Ministry in 2018 due to discrepancies in the duration of incarceration of his co-prisoners.

Venkatachalam approached the high court, challenging the rejection of his claim. A single-judge bench ruled in his favor, directing the authorities to disburse his pension. However, this decision was contested by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in an appeal before a division bench.

The Ministry argued for strict adherence to mandatory criteria, highlighting the non-binding nature of state government approvals on the central government. It emphasized the importance of necessary documentation to support claims and asserted that the high court lacked jurisdiction in matters requiring evidence appreciation.

In contrast, Venkatachalam argued that he was deemed eligible for a pension by the state government and pointed to a precedent where a similar directive was issued by the high court. He stressed the unique challenges faced by INA members detained in foreign countries, who lack the necessary certificates from jail authorities.

The division bench concurred with Venkatachalam’s argument, emphasizing the need for a harmonious interpretation of the scheme. It noted that rigidly insisting on the one-year jail term criterion for co-prisoners would unfairly impact INA members and could not be treated as a condition of eligibility.

Therefore, the court upheld the single-judge bench’s order, directing the authorities to grant pension benefits to Venkatachalam. However, it modified the order regarding the commencement date for the payment of arrears.