THILLAI LOKANATHAN V. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

DATE: 22/10/2025

COURT: High Court of Madras

BENCH: Justice V. Lakshminarayanan

FACTS:

The petitioner sought the transfer of her deceased mother’s pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 to her own account. Her father, Shri Shanmuga Thevar, had been a freedom fighter and member of the Indian National Army under Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. He was imprisoned by the British in Rangoon Jail for six months. Following independence, the family returned to India in impoverished circumstances. The petitioner's mother, Tmt. Lakshmi, had been receiving both State and Central government pensions until her death at the age of 83. The petitioner, who had been married to a Singapore citizen and later divorced after facing cruelty, returned to India and lived with her mother. After her mother’s demise, she applied for the transfer of the pension to her name, claiming she was financially dependent on her parents and suffering from ill health.

The petitioner’s earlier writ petition against the State of Tamil Nadu’s rejection of her pension claim was allowed, with the Court recognizing her dependent status and poor health. However, when she applied for the Central pension, the Union of India rejected her claim on the ground that divorced daughters were not eligible under the 2014 Revised Policy Guidelines of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which excluded widowed and divorced daughters from the definition of “dependent.” The petitioner challenged this exclusionary clause (Clause 5.2.5) as unconstitutional and discriminatory, arguing that it arbitrarily differentiated between unmarried and divorced dependent daughters.

ISSUES:

The main issue before the Court was whether a divorced daughter of a freedom fighter, who is financially dependent on her deceased parents, is entitled to receive pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The case also questioned the validity of Clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 Revised Guidelines, which disqualifies divorced daughters from availing the pensionary benefits available to other dependent family members.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order of the Central Government and directing that the petitioner be granted the pension from the date of her application (27.01.2023). The Court held that the exclusion of divorced daughters from the scope of eligible dependents under the scheme was unjustified and contrary to the constitutional spirit of equality. The Court relied on the precedent set in Khajani Devi v. Union of India, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, recognizing divorced daughters as entitled to the same benefits as unmarried daughters. The Court also directed the authorities to complete the necessary verification and process the petitioner’s pension within a stipulated time frame.

The Court reasoned that the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme is a beneficial and welfare-oriented legislation intended to honour and support the families of freedom fighters who had sacrificed their lives and livelihoods for the nation’s independence. As such, the scheme should not be interpreted in a restrictive or technical manner that deprives deserving dependents of its benefits. The Court emphasized that denying pension benefits to a divorced daughter, who was once married but now financially dependent on her late parents, constitutes an artificial and arbitrary distinction without any rational basis. The purpose of the scheme, it observed, was to ensure a dignified livelihood for the families of those who had endured hardship for the country's freedom, and that purpose would be defeated by an exclusion based solely on marital status.

Further, the Court underscored that the Khajani Devi case, affirmed by the Supreme Court, had already settled the issue by holding that divorced daughters must be treated at par with unmarried daughters for the purpose of pension eligibility. The Supreme Court had described that interpretation as “progressive and socially constructive,” aimed at advancing gender justice and social equity. The Madras High Court held that judicial discipline required adherence to that precedent. It also clarified that the Union of India’s reliance on judgments concerning compassionate appointments was misplaced, as such schemes serve a different purpose from the pension scheme for freedom fighters. Ultimately, the Court concluded that excluding divorced daughters from pensionary benefits under the 1980 Scheme undermines the very spirit of the recognition owed to freedom fighters and their dependents.

ANALYSIS:

The Madras High Court’s decision in this case marks a significant affirmation of gender equality and social justice in the interpretation of welfare legislation. By recognizing a divorced daughter as an eligible dependent under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the Court reinforced that beneficial schemes aimed at honouring freedom fighters must be interpreted liberally and in accordance with constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15. The judgment reflects a humanitarian approach, emphasizing that dependency and financial vulnerability, not marital status should determine entitlement to pensionary benefits. In doing so, the Court rejected the rigid and exclusionary stance of the Union Government, finding the 2014 Guidelines arbitrary and inconsistent with the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution.

This ruling also strengthens the jurisprudence established in Khajani Devi v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court had held that divorced daughters must be treated on par with unmarried daughters for pension eligibility. The Madras High Court not only upheld this precedent but also clarified that such recognition goes beyond mere administrative fairness, it is essential for advancing substantive gender justice. The Court’s reasoning underscores that the pension scheme is not an act of charity but a continuing acknowledgment of the sacrifices made by freedom fighters and their families. By rejecting technical exclusions and emphasizing social equity, the judgment sets an important precedent for interpreting welfare schemes in a manner that upholds dignity, equality, and justice for women in vulnerable situations.