Asha Devi And Ors v. State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Rajnaik Pension Anubhag

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and also the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State- respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by five petitioners, out of which counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Deepak Chaudhary, has pressed the case of petitioners nos.1, 2 and 4 only, as he says that petitioners nos.3 and 5 have not sent any instructions to him to argue the matter on their behalf.

3. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:– (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.10.2017 "so for concern with petitioners" passed by opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to declare to petitioners as fighters of democracy according to sub section (a) of Section 2 and provide benefits according to sub Section (b)(c) & (d) of Section 2 of the Act namely "Uttar Pradesh Fighter of Democracy Honor Act 2016". the country. The petitioners, along with

4. It has been submitted that in 1975 the Central Government notified emergency associates, protested against such emergency and they fought for restitution of democracy in the country by raising slogans and taking flags in their hands against emergency. They were sent to jail and remained in jail from 25.06.1975 to 21.03.1977. They filed Writ 2 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 Petition No.8500 (MB) of 2014 before this Court with a specific averment that they went to jail during the emergency period. The respondents have also admitted in such writ petition before this Court that the petitioners were languishing in jail w.e.f. 09.12.1976 to 17.02.1977. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.05.2017 with directions to the District Magistrate to look into the matter by calling from all subordinate officers and administrative officers as well as jail authorities. After such writ petition was disposed of, petitioners appeared before the District Magistrate, who constituted a committee to decide the question of eligibility of the petitioners for taking the benefit of pension after being declared as fighters for democracy. Thereafter, District Magistrate has rejected their claim and therefore this writ petition has been filed. reports

5. It has been submitted that the Superintendent of Jail, Barabanki, has issued certificates through letter dated 25.07.2013 to the effect that, from the records as available in District Jail, Barabanki, the petitioners were arrested and sent to jail in Case Crime No.776 of 1976, under Sections 33/43/48 of Defence of India Rules (DIR) and Section 188 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Barabanki. True copies of such certificates issued with regard to individual petitioners have been collectively filed as Annexure No. 5 to the petition. It has been argued that on 03.02.2014 the Superintendent of Jail, Barabanki, issued a letter to the District Magistrate, Barabanki, certifying the authenticity of the information given in his letter dated 25.07.2013, affirming that all the petitioners were languishing in jail as accused in cases filed under MISA/DIR, and their ages were 12 years, 08 years, 09 years, 09 years, 08 years respectively.

6. Initially in 2012 the State Government had issued an order on the basis of a policy decision for giving pension to fighters for democracy (Loktantra Senani). Later on the State Government notified the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act, 2016 on 22.03.2016. According to Section 2(a) of the Act, persons who are permanent residents of the State of U.P. and who actively fought to protect democracy during 21.03.1977 and who were detained at any time during this period on political grounds in jail and under MISA/DIR for participating in such activities would be entitled to get free medical facility, free transport facility and honorarium. the emergency period w.e.f. 25.06.1975

7. Since the petitioners are fulfilling all conditions, they had applied, 3 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 inquiry was but their case was not decided. Therefore, after disposal of Writ Petition No. 8500 (MB) of 2014 by this Court's order dated the District Magistrate, instituted by 09.05.2017, Barabanki. It has been submitted that once the jail authorities certified the authenticity of the certificate issued on 25.07.2013, there was no reason for the respondents to withhold the benefits as admissible to the petitioners as fighters for democracy. The certificates dated 25.07.2013 were again verified by letter dated 14.08.2017 by the Superintendent of District Jail, Kasganj, namely, Laxmi Narayan Dohre, who was earlier working as Superintendent, District Jail, Barabanki, when he had issued the letter dated 25.07.2013.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that irrelevant reports were called from Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, in the matter by the District Magistrate. The Superintendent of Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, submitted a false report which led to rejection of the petitioners' claim by the District Magistrate in the order impugned.

9. Sri Raj Bux Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has pointed out from the counter affidavit filed initially by Tehsildar, Nawabganj, Barabanki, that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of Loktantra Senani as per the decision taken by the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate in compliance of judgment and order dated 09.05.2017. The six-member committee had held several meetings; the petitioners as well as officials were heard in such meetings and in the recommendation made by such committee, it has been specifically stated that the petitioners were not charged as accused under MISA/DIR and although they were in jail for a short period of time, it was because they were wholly dependent on their parents/mothers who had been incarcerated in jail on raising protest against attempt to stifle democracy. Personal hearing was given to petitioner no.1, Asha Devi, on 16.10.2017. The committee relied upon the report submitted by Superintendent of District Jail dated 08.09.2017 indicating that a six-year-old child, Asha Devi, had accompanied her mother, Shanti Devi wife of Shatrohan Prasad, on 25.12.1976; the mother along with child was sent to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow. Similarly, another report was submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail, on 08.09.2016 with regard to Geeta Devi, petitioner no. 2, saying that one woman prisoner, Savitri Devi wife of Sahab Lal, was found to have been an inmate in jail and her name is recorded at serial no.50 along with a two-year-old girl child; 4 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 the name of the girl child was not clearly written. From District Jail, Barabanki, Savitri Devi shifted to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, along with her girl child. With regard to petitioner no.3, Narendra Kumar, the Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, in his report dated 08.09.2016 indicated that name of woman prisoner Smt. Prema wife of Lal Bahadur is recorded at serial no.57 along with her five-year-old child, Narendra Kumar. Prema was later on transferred from District Jail, Barabanki, to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, on 25.12.1976. Narendra Kumar was never charged/accused under MISA/DIR. With regard to Manoj Kumar, petitioner no. 4, it has been stated that he appeared before the Committee on 16.10.2017 and given a personal hearing. The Superintendent, District Jail, in his report dated 08.09.2016 indicated that one woman prisoner, namely, Prem Kumari wife of Suresh, is recorded at serial no.67 along with one-and-half-year-old child, Manoj Kumar. With regard to Kumar Meera, petitioner no. 5, she was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.10.2017 but she did not turn up. The Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, in his report dated 08.09.2016 indicated that her name is recorded at serial no. 57 along with her two-year-old girl child, Km. Meera and she was sent to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, on 25.12.1976 and later on released on bail on 17.02.1977. Km. Meera, who was only two years old at the time her mother was arrested and sent to jail and thereafter Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, was not charged/treated as an accused under MISA/DIR.

10. In a rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners, the petitioners have refuted the counter affidavit of the respondents and it has been submitted that the Superintendent, District Jail, Barabanki, issued a letter on 25.08.2013 clearly certifying that in the record of the jail as maintained and dated 09.12.1976 the names of all the petitioners have been mentioned at serial nos.4430, 4448, 4434, 4438 and 4435, and the related crime number is 776 of 1976, under Sections 33, 43, 48 D.I.R. and Section 188 I.P.C., Police Kotwali Barabanki.

11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not disputed by the jail authorities that the petitioners were aged about 12 years, 8 years, 9 years, 9 years, 8 years respectively and they languished in jail as accused on the basis of charges under MISA/DIR. It has further been submitted that after the initial correct report, the Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, has submitted a wrong report on 08.09.2016 and the same is contrary to the report dated 22.11.2012 issued from the Office of Superintendent of Nari 5 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, who was also Incharge of Adarsh Karagar, Lucknow. In the earlier reports dated 25.07.2013 and 03.02.2014 it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioners were individually charged under MISA/DIR when they were about 12 years, 8 years, 9 years, 9 years, 8 years respectively. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the ages of the petitioners were not duly verified by the prison authorities and a wrong report has been submitted on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Annexure No. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit which is dated 22.11.2012, which is a letter sent from the Office of Superintendent of Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, which says that as per the DIR register/records available in his office no female prisoners along with any child are stated to have been admitted on 25.12.1976 in Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on Annexure No.3 to the rejoinder affidavit, which is a letter sent by the Incharge Inspector of Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki, dated 02.02.2016 to the Circle Officer, City, in response to an R.T.I. application made by the petitioners. It reports that on 09.12.1976 in Case No. 776/1976 under Section 33/43/48 D.I.R. and Section 188 I.P.C., the named accused were 29 and the names of such accused have been given, which mention Asha Devi, Narendra Kumar and Meera at serial nos.4, 7 and 8 of the list.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the warrant of intermediate custody on remand to be signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 09.12.1976, which mentions Km. Asha, daughter of Shatrohan Prasad, as an accused in Case Crime No. 776 of 1976 and the period of custody being 09.12.1976 to 23.12.1976. Similar warrants of intermediate custody on remand have been issued for Km. Geeta as an accused in Case Crime No. 776 of 1976 and Narendra Kumar as an accused in Case Crime No. 776 of 1976.

15. We have carefully perused the annexures filed along with the rejoinder affidavit and find that the remand orders clearly mention the names of the mothers at the top of such warrants of intermediate custody of remand.

16. We have also gone through the supplementary counter affidavit 6 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 that has been filed by the State respondents, in which it has been stated that at serial nos. 57 and 60 of the jail admission register the names of the convicts have been mentioned as Smt. Prema wife of Lal Bahadur and Smt. Shanti wife of Shatrohan Prasad as accused in Crime No. 776 of 1976. Against entry no. 57 and adjacent to the name of Smt. Prema it has been recorded that she was admitted in jail along with her child Meera and Virendra Kumar, both being infants. Similarly, against entry no. 60, the name of Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Shatrohan Prasad, it has been recorded that she was admitted along with her infant children. All the petitioners were less than 10 years of age in 1976. The petitioners were heard in person and the committee duly constituted by the District Magistrate, after examination of all documents, concluded that no separate cases were lodged against the petitioners; rather, they went to jail along with their parents/mothers. They could not be said to have fought for the protection of democracy for extending to them the benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act, 2016.

17. We have also gone through the order impugned and we find from the same that it initially mentions the earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8500 of 2014 by Loktantra Raksak Senani Kalyan Parisad, Barabanki, and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of in the light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Writ Petition No. 1282 (MB) of 2007, Jharkhande Tripathi vs. Union of India and others. It thereafter mentions constitution of the Additional Magistrate, Senior Treasury Officer, Senior Prosecution Officer, Superintendent, District Jail, Chief Administrative Officer and one Ajay Singh, Loktantra Senani Kalyan Parisad, as its members. Thereafter it mentions the minutes of the meetings held by the committee on various dates. the committee which included

18. It has compared the documents that were produced by the petitioners and verified the original documents produced by the jail authorities and noted that the petitioners had been admitted to District Jail along with their mothers because they were infants/less than the age at which it could be said that they were cognizant of their actions. The committee has come to the conclusion that at such young age the petitioners could not be said to have fought for protection of democracy and therefore they could not be said to come within the definition given under the government order and the Act framed thereof and notified later on. Loktantra Senani has been defined as a 7 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 permanent resident of U.P. who, 21.03.1977, during the period of emergency, had been politically active and had struggled for protection of democracy and as a result of such participation in political interest, was sent to jail as a political prisoner under MISA and DIR. in between 25.06.1975

19. We do not find any good ground to show interference in the well- reasoned and speaking order passed by the competent authority.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. November 18, 2025 Ashish Dewal (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and also the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State- respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by five petitioners, out of which counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Deepak Chaudhary, has pressed the case of petitioners nos.1, 2 and 4 only, as he says that petitioners nos.3 and 5 have not sent any instructions to him to argue the matter on their behalf.

3. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:– (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.10.2017 "so for concern with petitioners" passed by opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to declare to petitioners as fighters of democracy according to sub section (a) of Section 2 and provide benefits according to sub Section (b)(c) & (d) of Section 2 of the Act namely "Uttar Pradesh Fighter of Democracy Honor Act 2016". the country. The petitioners, along with

4. It has been submitted that in 1975 the Central Government notified emergency associates, protested against such emergency and they fought for restitution of democracy in the country by raising slogans and taking flags in their hands against emergency. They were sent to jail and remained in jail from 25.06.1975 to 21.03.1977. They filed Writ 2 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 Petition No.8500 (MB) of 2014 before this Court with a specific averment that they went to jail during the emergency period. The respondents have also admitted in such writ petition before this Court that the petitioners were languishing in jail w.e.f. 09.12.1976 to 17.02.1977. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.05.2017 with directions to the District Magistrate to look into the matter by calling from all subordinate officers and administrative officers as well as jail authorities. After such writ petition was disposed of, petitioners appeared before the District Magistrate, who constituted a committee to decide the question of eligibility of the petitioners for taking the benefit of pension after being declared as fighters for democracy. Thereafter, District Magistrate has rejected their claim and therefore this writ petition has been filed. reports

5. It has been submitted that the Superintendent of Jail, Barabanki, has issued certificates through letter dated 25.07.2013 to the effect that, from the records as available in District Jail, Barabanki, the petitioners were arrested and sent to jail in Case Crime No.776 of 1976, under Sections 33/43/48 of Defence of India Rules (DIR) and Section 188 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Barabanki. True copies of such certificates issued with regard to individual petitioners have been collectively filed as Annexure No. 5 to the petition. It has been argued that on 03.02.2014 the Superintendent of Jail, Barabanki, issued a letter to the District Magistrate, Barabanki, certifying the authenticity of the information given in his letter dated 25.07.2013, affirming that all the petitioners were languishing in jail as accused in cases filed under MISA/DIR, and their ages were 12 years, 08 years, 09 years, 09 years, 08 years respectively.

6. Initially in 2012 the State Government had issued an order on the basis of a policy decision for giving pension to fighters for democracy (Loktantra Senani). Later on the State Government notified the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act, 2016 on 22.03.2016. According to Section 2(a) of the Act, persons who are permanent residents of the State of U.P. and who actively fought to protect democracy during 21.03.1977 and who were detained at any time during this period on political grounds in jail and under MISA/DIR for participating in such activities would be entitled to get free medical facility, free transport facility and honorarium. the emergency period w.e.f. 25.06.1975

7. Since the petitioners are fulfilling all conditions, they had applied, 3 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 inquiry was but their case was not decided. Therefore, after disposal of Writ Petition No. 8500 (MB) of 2014 by this Court's order dated the District Magistrate, instituted by 09.05.2017, Barabanki. It has been submitted that once the jail authorities certified the authenticity of the certificate issued on 25.07.2013, there was no reason for the respondents to withhold the benefits as admissible to the petitioners as fighters for democracy. The certificates dated 25.07.2013 were again verified by letter dated 14.08.2017 by the Superintendent of District Jail, Kasganj, namely, Laxmi Narayan Dohre, who was earlier working as Superintendent, District Jail, Barabanki, when he had issued the letter dated 25.07.2013.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that irrelevant reports were called from Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, in the matter by the District Magistrate. The Superintendent of Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, submitted a false report which led to rejection of the petitioners' claim by the District Magistrate in the order impugned.

9. Sri Raj Bux Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has pointed out from the counter affidavit filed initially by Tehsildar, Nawabganj, Barabanki, that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of Loktantra Senani as per the decision taken by the Committee constituted by the District Magistrate in compliance of judgment and order dated 09.05.2017. The six-member committee had held several meetings; the petitioners as well as officials were heard in such meetings and in the recommendation made by such committee, it has been specifically stated that the petitioners were not charged as accused under MISA/DIR and although they were in jail for a short period of time, it was because they were wholly dependent on their parents/mothers who had been incarcerated in jail on raising protest against attempt to stifle democracy. Personal hearing was given to petitioner no.1, Asha Devi, on 16.10.2017. The committee relied upon the report submitted by Superintendent of District Jail dated 08.09.2017 indicating that a six-year-old child, Asha Devi, had accompanied her mother, Shanti Devi wife of Shatrohan Prasad, on 25.12.1976; the mother along with child was sent to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow. Similarly, another report was submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail, on 08.09.2016 with regard to Geeta Devi, petitioner no. 2, saying that one woman prisoner, Savitri Devi wife of Sahab Lal, was found to have been an inmate in jail and her name is recorded at serial no.50 along with a two-year-old girl child; 4 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 the name of the girl child was not clearly written. From District Jail, Barabanki, Savitri Devi shifted to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, along with her girl child. With regard to petitioner no.3, Narendra Kumar, the Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, in his report dated 08.09.2016 indicated that name of woman prisoner Smt. Prema wife of Lal Bahadur is recorded at serial no.57 along with her five-year-old child, Narendra Kumar. Prema was later on transferred from District Jail, Barabanki, to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, on 25.12.1976. Narendra Kumar was never charged/accused under MISA/DIR. With regard to Manoj Kumar, petitioner no. 4, it has been stated that he appeared before the Committee on 16.10.2017 and given a personal hearing. The Superintendent, District Jail, in his report dated 08.09.2016 indicated that one woman prisoner, namely, Prem Kumari wife of Suresh, is recorded at serial no.67 along with one-and-half-year-old child, Manoj Kumar. With regard to Kumar Meera, petitioner no. 5, she was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.10.2017 but she did not turn up. The Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, in his report dated 08.09.2016 indicated that her name is recorded at serial no. 57 along with her two-year-old girl child, Km. Meera and she was sent to Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, on 25.12.1976 and later on released on bail on 17.02.1977. Km. Meera, who was only two years old at the time her mother was arrested and sent to jail and thereafter Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, was not charged/treated as an accused under MISA/DIR.

10. In a rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners, the petitioners have refuted the counter affidavit of the respondents and it has been submitted that the Superintendent, District Jail, Barabanki, issued a letter on 25.08.2013 clearly certifying that in the record of the jail as maintained and dated 09.12.1976 the names of all the petitioners have been mentioned at serial nos.4430, 4448, 4434, 4438 and 4435, and the related crime number is 776 of 1976, under Sections 33, 43, 48 D.I.R. and Section 188 I.P.C., Police Kotwali Barabanki.

11. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not disputed by the jail authorities that the petitioners were aged about 12 years, 8 years, 9 years, 9 years, 8 years respectively and they languished in jail as accused on the basis of charges under MISA/DIR. It has further been submitted that after the initial correct report, the Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow, has submitted a wrong report on 08.09.2016 and the same is contrary to the report dated 22.11.2012 issued from the Office of Superintendent of Nari 5 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, who was also Incharge of Adarsh Karagar, Lucknow. In the earlier reports dated 25.07.2013 and 03.02.2014 it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioners were individually charged under MISA/DIR when they were about 12 years, 8 years, 9 years, 9 years, 8 years respectively. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the ages of the petitioners were not duly verified by the prison authorities and a wrong report has been submitted on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Annexure No. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit which is dated 22.11.2012, which is a letter sent from the Office of Superintendent of Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow, which says that as per the DIR register/records available in his office no female prisoners along with any child are stated to have been admitted on 25.12.1976 in Nari Bandi Niketan, Lucknow.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on Annexure No.3 to the rejoinder affidavit, which is a letter sent by the Incharge Inspector of Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki, dated 02.02.2016 to the Circle Officer, City, in response to an R.T.I. application made by the petitioners. It reports that on 09.12.1976 in Case No. 776/1976 under Section 33/43/48 D.I.R. and Section 188 I.P.C., the named accused were 29 and the names of such accused have been given, which mention Asha Devi, Narendra Kumar and Meera at serial nos.4, 7 and 8 of the list.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the warrant of intermediate custody on remand to be signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 09.12.1976, which mentions Km. Asha, daughter of Shatrohan Prasad, as an accused in Case Crime No. 776 of 1976 and the period of custody being 09.12.1976 to 23.12.1976. Similar warrants of intermediate custody on remand have been issued for Km. Geeta as an accused in Case Crime No. 776 of 1976 and Narendra Kumar as an accused in Case Crime No. 776 of 1976.

15. We have carefully perused the annexures filed along with the rejoinder affidavit and find that the remand orders clearly mention the names of the mothers at the top of such warrants of intermediate custody of remand.

16. We have also gone through the supplementary counter affidavit 6 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 that has been filed by the State respondents, in which it has been stated that at serial nos. 57 and 60 of the jail admission register the names of the convicts have been mentioned as Smt. Prema wife of Lal Bahadur and Smt. Shanti wife of Shatrohan Prasad as accused in Crime No. 776 of 1976. Against entry no. 57 and adjacent to the name of Smt. Prema it has been recorded that she was admitted in jail along with her child Meera and Virendra Kumar, both being infants. Similarly, against entry no. 60, the name of Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Shatrohan Prasad, it has been recorded that she was admitted along with her infant children. All the petitioners were less than 10 years of age in 1976. The petitioners were heard in person and the committee duly constituted by the District Magistrate, after examination of all documents, concluded that no separate cases were lodged against the petitioners; rather, they went to jail along with their parents/mothers. They could not be said to have fought for the protection of democracy for extending to them the benefits under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honor Act, 2016.

17. We have also gone through the order impugned and we find from the same that it initially mentions the earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8500 of 2014 by Loktantra Raksak Senani Kalyan Parisad, Barabanki, and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of in the light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Writ Petition No. 1282 (MB) of 2007, Jharkhande Tripathi vs. Union of India and others. It thereafter mentions constitution of the Additional Magistrate, Senior Treasury Officer, Senior Prosecution Officer, Superintendent, District Jail, Chief Administrative Officer and one Ajay Singh, Loktantra Senani Kalyan Parisad, as its members. Thereafter it mentions the minutes of the meetings held by the committee on various dates. the committee which included

18. It has compared the documents that were produced by the petitioners and verified the original documents produced by the jail authorities and noted that the petitioners had been admitted to District Jail along with their mothers because they were infants/less than the age at which it could be said that they were cognizant of their actions. The committee has come to the conclusion that at such young age the petitioners could not be said to have fought for protection of democracy and therefore they could not be said to come within the definition given under the government order and the Act framed thereof and notified later on. Loktantra Senani has been defined as a 7 WRIC No. 2991 of 2018 permanent resident of U.P. who, 21.03.1977, during the period of emergency, had been politically active and had struggled for protection of democracy and as a result of such participation in political interest, was sent to jail as a political prisoner under MISA and DIR. in between 25.06.1975

19. We do not find any good ground to show interference in the well- reasoned and speaking order passed by the competent authority.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. November 18, 2025 Ashish Dewal (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench