Affidavits Of Similarly Situated Detenues Sufficient To Determine If A Person Was MISA Prisoner During Emergency, Jail Certificate Not Must: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that affidavits of two similarly situated detenues are sufficient to determine that a person was detained in the prison as a prisoner under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) 1971 and under the Defence of India Rules (DIR) during emergency period.A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke sitting at Gwalior thus quashed an order...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that affidavits of two similarly situated detenues are sufficient to determine that a person was detained in the prison as a prisoner under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) 1971 and under the Defence of India Rules (DIR) during emergency period.
A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke sitting at Gwalior thus quashed an order which rejected an application for grant of statutory pension on the ground that no certificate of either the District Magistrate or the Jail Authorities or the concerning police station was filed to demonstrate that the petitioner's husband was a MISA/DIR detenu.
It observed,
“The two affidavits of similarly situated prisoners were sufficient to hold that the said persons were detained in the prison as a MISA/DIR prisoner and were residing at Morena (M.P.). In the aforesaid context, if the application of the present petitioner which was filed on 31.05.2013 is seen, it is appended along with the affidavits of two prisoners who were detained in jail as a MISA/DIR prisoners...who had categorically stated on affidavits that the husband of the petitioner...was also detained in prison along with them as a MISA/DIR detenu which according to this Court was a sufficient compliance which has totally been ignored by the authorities while considering the application of the petitioner.”
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal and a non-speaking order which failed to provide even the basic reasons for discarding the application of the petitioner for seeking pension under the Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnatik Ya Samajik Karano Se Nirudh Vyakti) Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008 (Rules, 2008).
He further submitted that the petitioner fulfils all the basic eligibility criteria to claim the pension amount under the Rules, 2008 and act of respondents amounts to discrimination as the other similarly situated persons are receiving pension under MISA while the petitioner's husband who remained in jail for approx. 1 year, no consideration is made and no benefit was extended to him.
The Counsel for the State submitted that the application of the petitioner for grant of special pension under Rules, 2008 had rightly been rejected as no certificate of either the District Magistrate or the Jail Authorities or the concerning police station was filed to demonstrate that the petitioner was a MISA/DIR detenu which as per Rules, 2008 was basic requirement. It was further submitted that since the husband of the petitioner himself was not entitled for grant of statutory pension under Rules, 2008, the petitioner who happens to be his wife is also not entitled for any relief.
The court quashed the impugned order and concluded that the affidavits filed were sufficient compliance to show that petitioner is eligible for statutory pension under the Rules, 2008. Thus, the petitioner was entitled for half of the pension which her husband would have received. The court directed the respondent authorities to grant Samman Nidhi as provided under Rules, 2008 to the petitioner as per her entitlement forthwith.
Case Title: LEELA DEVI BANSAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION No. 28102 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 288