B.K. Nagaraj vs.

Union of India [AIR 2004

Kant 90]
In 2004, the year that this matter was heard in the High Court of Karnataka, a bench consisting of a single
judge, H Rangavittalachar, presided over it and issued the ruling. The article that is stated below is based
on the IRAC format, and it will provide you with a concise overview of the problems that are at play in
the case, as well as the rules and applications that are associated with this specific body of case law.

This article discusses all of the background facts as well as the decision that the bench reached in this
particular case.

Issue in B.K. Nagaraj vs. Union of India

1. Whether the person who is recognized as a freedom fighter by the state government should be
recognized the same by the central government?
2. Whether the petitioner had met the other criteria of the Scheme, which was that he had endured a
minimum of six months of imprisonment during the freedom movement.

Rule in B.K. Nagaraj vs. Union of India

When a person with the status of a freedom fighter makes a statement that he was imprisoned for six long
months, the court may presume that such statements are true unless they are disproved by material on a
record or other evidence.

This fundamental rule of interpretation of presumption of statement was laid down by a court of
competent jurisdiction and is based on the aforementioned issues. This can be clearly understood by
looking at Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was passed in 1872.

This section specifically deals with the provision of where the court may presume the existence of any
fact which it thinks likely to have occurred, regard being had to the common course of natural events,
human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the fact of the case. This can be
understood by looking at Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Application
The Honorable Karnataka High Court, in reaching its judgement on the particular case, complied with the
rule that was outlined in the earlier portion of the paragraph.

It is disconcerting that a freedom fighter who has been acknowledged as such by the State Government is
required to repeatedly address the court for the granting of a Freedom Fighter’s Pension in accordance
with the Swatantra Sainik Sarnman Pension Scheme, 1980, which was enacted into law by the
Government of India to honor freedom fighters.
The purpose of the law was to provide financial support to freedom fighters who had served their country
honorably. Throughout the entirety of this investigation, the State Government has acknowledged the
freedom fighter.

Petitioner applied on November 27, 1997, under the subject ‘Actual period of imprisonment suffered.’ He
has stated that he was incarcerated from February 2, 1942, until November 4, 1942, and from September
14, 1947, until October 12, 1947. His application was submitted under this subject on November 27,
1997.

The application in question was ultimately denied by the Government of India through the use of an
executive order on August 14, 1998. The reason that this decision was made was that the identity of the
petitioner could not be confirmed because there was some degree of ambiguity in the characteristic of the
petitioner’s father’s name. This ambiguity was the reason that this decision was made.

This order was further challenged by the petitioner, and with the above-mentioned issue 1 of the
petitioner in mind, it can be analysed that it is important for the authorities to keep in mind that those
individuals who are illiterate rely heavily on those individuals who pretend to be literate to fill out the
application forms and submit them.

The petitioner challenged this order further. If the claim is accurate, then the existence of a few
discrepancies of a less significant kind here and there cannot be taken to represent substantial
inconsistencies.

The bench made reference to the case of K.S. Velusamy v. The Government of India and anr. 1996, in
which it was determined that anytime a state government pays a freedom warrior a pension, the national
government should do so as well and not seek any additional proof.

To rephrase it, if a freedom fighter receives a pension from either the State or the Central government, he
is entitled to receive the other pension without any further investigation into whether or not he satisfies
the requirements, and the government is unable to refute the claim outright on the grounds that he is not a
freedom fighter.

This is because the government can’t deny the claim on the grounds that he isn’t a freedom fighter. As a
result, the initial problem has been solved here.

Concerning the other matter at hand, the petitioner has previously gone to the court and demanded
information regarding the length of time he has been held in custody. The Senior Superintendent of
Central Prisons, where it was claimed in the petition that the individual in question was incarcerated
there, provided an annexure on March 15, 1991 that stated, “Jail extract for your March 11, 1991
application.”

There are missing pages in the 1942 conviction, the reference registries, and the ongoing trials. According
to the release diary and data book, the day that No. 22 Nagaraj was freed was November 4, 1942.

An additional affidavit was provided by V.S. Raja, the Senior Superintendent of Central Prisons, on
behalf of the State of Texas in this regard. This certificate and the affidavit that was sworn to by the
Senior Superintendent prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner was incarcerated but that he
was unable to receive a certificate from the jail authorities showing the precise length of his detention
because part of the pages in the register were ripped out.
This is conclusive proof of the petitioner’s incarceration. There is no way to hold the petitioner
accountable or compel them to submit the missing documents. An examination of the program reveals
that nowhere does it indicate or imply that an application is not eligible for a pension “even if an applicant
fails to provide the certificates, even if his detention records are lost, destroyed, or unavailable.” This is
something that can be studied.

While discussing the issues at hand, the court more or less reveals that the authorities must also remember
that either the Government of India or the State Government has published a Scheme to honor freedom
fighters in the genuine spirit of the provisions. This is something that must be kept in mind by the
authorities.

“Those who have contributed their lives to the nation should be recognized,” and the plan should be
freely interpreted so that the actual freedom warrior is not dishonored by the technique. “Those who have
dedicated their lives to the nation should be recognized.”

In order to arrive at this conclusion, it performed an analysis from the point of view of the burden of
evidence on the practical implications that these declarations of presumption have.

Conclusion
After going through the issues involved in this case and applying the rule of interpreting the presumption
of statement that was discussed earlier, the court that has jurisdiction over the matter came to the
conclusion that the Indian government was not acting in the spirit described above when it granted the
pension to the petitioner.

They were devising new strategies to come up with grounds to turn down the application, all of which
were illegitimate in some way. The court would have remanded the case for reconsideration, but taking
into consideration the age of the petitioner and the consideration by the authorities as an answer to
rejecting the application, the court ordered the respondents to grant the pension to the petitioner relying
on the scheme and as per his legal standings and beginning with the date that he made the application, the
court allowed the petition.

Keeping in mind the age of the petitioner and the consideration by the authorities as an answer to
rejecting the application, the court ordered.