Divorced Daughters on Par with Unmarried Daughters under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme: Commentary on Thillai Lokanathan v. Deputy Secretary, MHA

1. Introduction

The decision of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 29353 of 2025, Thillai Lokanathan v. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, delivered by Justice V. Lakshminarayanan on 22 October 2025, addresses a crucial question at the intersection of constitutional equality, gender justice, and the interpretation of a beneficial State scheme.

The petitioner, Thillai Lokanathan, is the divorced daughter of a freedom fighter, late Shri Shanmuga Thevar, an Indian National Army (INA) member who suffered imprisonment in Rangoon Jail for six months during the freedom struggle. Her mother, Tmt. Lakshmi, also a freedom fighter who underwent incarceration for a month, was receiving freedom fighters’ pension from both the State of Tamil Nadu and the Central Government under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (“SSSP Scheme”).

After the death of her mother at the age of 83, the petitioner, having returned to India following a failed marriage in Singapore and living in impoverished circumstances with serious health issues, sought transfer of the Central freedom fighter’s pension to her own account. The Union of India rejected her claim on the ground that the 2014 Revised Policy Guidelines under the SSSP Scheme, specifically Clause 5.2.3 read with Clause 5.2.5, excluded widowed/divorced daughters from the category of eligible dependents.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner initially prayed for transfer of pension. Subsequently, with leave of court, she amended the prayer to challenge Clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines, contending that the exclusion of divorced daughters is illegal, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment thus revolves around a central issue:

Can a divorced daughter, who is otherwise dependent and impoverished, be denied the benefit of Central freedom fighters’ pension solely because she was once married, when an unmarried daughter in identical circumstances would be eligible?

In resolving this, the Court engages with a series of precedents from different High Courts and the Supreme Court, and ultimately adopts a constitutionally aligned, purposive and beneficial interpretation of the SSSP Scheme, bringing divorced daughters on par with unmarried daughters for the purposes of eligibility.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The main holdings and directions of the Madras High Court can be distilled as follows:

The petitioner’s parents were admittedly freedom fighters, and the petitioner is in impoverished circumstances with serious health issues; these foundational facts are not in dispute.
The only ground for denial of pension by the Union of India was that the petitioner is a divorced daughter and, under the 2014 Guidelines (Clause 5.2.3 and 5.2.5), divorced/widowed daughters are not treated as eligible dependents for the SSSP Scheme.
The Court holds that the distinction between an unmarried dependent daughter and a divorced dependent daughter for the purpose of freedom fighters’ pension is artificial and irrational, especially when the divorced daughter is the sole eligible dependent.
The Court relies heavily on:
- Khajani Devi v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15867, and the Supreme Court’s speaking order in Union of India v. Khajani Devi, SLP (C) Diary No. 17706 of 2017 (order dated 27.09.2019); and
- Union of India v. Kolli Uday Kumari, Review Petition No. 21 of 2022 in LPA No. 476 of 2021 (Delhi High Court, 20.01.2023),
both of which recognize divorced daughters as eligible for SSSP pension on par with unmarried daughters.
The Court distinguishes judgments cited by the Union of India (e.g., State of H.P. v. Jafli Devi, Union of India v. Laxmibai, and certain High Court decisions) on the ground that they:
- concerned compassionate appointment schemes or other contexts, not the SSSP Scheme, and
- in some cases did not take into account the Supreme Court’s approval of Khajani Devi.
The Court invokes judicial discipline to follow the Supreme Court’s “progressive and socially constructive” approach in Khajani Devi, holding that divorced daughters must be treated on par with unmarried daughters under the SSSP Scheme.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim is quashed.
The petitioner is held entitled to pension from the date of her application, 27.01.2023.
A procedural mechanism is laid down:
- The Union of India is granted eight weeks to do the needful.
- The respondent (Central Government) shall forward papers to the State of Tamil Nadu forthwith.
- The State of Tamil Nadu shall conduct an enquiry and submit a report within four weeks on:
  - whether the petitioner is in impoverished circumstances; and
  - whether she was dependent on her parents during their lifetime.
- Upon receipt of the State’s report, the Central Government shall pass appropriate orders within four months.

While the Court stops short of expressly striking down Clause 5.2.5 in formal terms, its reasoning effectively neutralizes the exclusion of divorced daughters under that clause, at least where they are otherwise eligible and dependent, and aligns the interpretation of the scheme with constitutional norms and the Supreme Court’s guidance.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Statutory and Policy Framework

3.1.1 The Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980

The SSSP Scheme is a Central Government scheme administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, meant to provide Samman (honour) pension to freedom fighters and, after their death, to their eligible dependents. It is not a contributory pension but a gratuitous, honorific pension, conceptualized to recognize the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle.

Under the scheme, primary beneficiaries are the freedom fighters themselves. Upon their demise, the benefit may be extended to certain dependents, generally including:

spouses,
unmarried daughters,
minor sons and, in some formulations,
in some categories, other dependents in specified circumstances.

3.1.2 2014 Revised Policy Guidelines and Clause 5.2.5

In 2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued Revised Policy Guidelines governing disbursement of the SSSP pension. The key clauses relevant to this case are:

Clause 5.2.3 – which sets conditions for a daughter to qualify as an eligible dependent, including:
- absence of independent source of income; and
- remaining unmarried.
Clause 5.2.5 – which specifically provides that widowed/divorced daughters are not entitled to receive the Samman pension.

It is Clause 5.2.5 – to the extent that it categorically excludes widowed/divorced daughters – that is under constitutional scrutiny in this case, via the amended prayer challenging it as violative of Articles 14 and 21.

3.2 Issues Before the Court

The Court had to answer the following core questions:

Eligibility of divorced daughters: Whether a divorced daughter who is otherwise dependent and impoverished can be denied pension solely on the basis of her marital history, when an unmarried daughter in the same situation would be eligible.
Validity/interpretation of Clause 5.2.5 (2014 Guidelines): Whether the exclusion of widowed/divorced daughters under Clause 5.2.5 is:
- consistent with the object and purpose of the SSSP Scheme; and
- compatible with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Effect of prior judicial findings on impoverishment: Whether, in view of the Madras High Court’s earlier decision in W.P. No. 10344 of 2023 (granting State pension and recognizing the petitioner’s impoverished condition), it remained open to question that she is financially distressed and dependent.
Binding nature of precedents: How the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India v. Khajani Devi and High Court decisions (both for and against claims by divorced daughters) should guide the adjudication.

3.3 Precedents Considered

3.3.1 Khajani Devi v. Union of India (Punjab & Haryana High Court) and Supreme Court approval

The pivotal authority relied upon is Khajani Devi v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15867. There, as here, the petitioner was a divorced daughter of a freedom fighter, the sole surviving heir, fully dependent on her father, and was denied pension on the ground that a divorced daughter was not an eligible dependent.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in appeal, rejected such exclusion. Two aspects of its reasoning are particularly important and are quoted at length in the Madras judgment:

“The underlying object in the clause of the Scheme listing eligible dependents is that only one be granted the pension. Therefore, the authorities have to construe the admissibility of benefit from that angle. It is not the case that the daughters are excluded altogether. An unmarried daughter finds mention in the list of eligible dependents. It would, thus, be a travesty to exclude a divorced daughter. There would be no rationality to the reason that the unmarried daughter can be included in the list of eligible dependents and a divorced daughter would stand excluded, particularly when she is the sole eligible dependent and thus, qualifies for the benefit, which is concededly made admissible only to one dependent.

Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that a beneficial Scheme such as the one in hand should not be fettered or construed by a rigorous interpretation which tends to deprive the claimants of the benefit to result in virtual frustration or negation of the laudable motive of the Scheme itself.”

The Bench also noted that the Ministry of Defence, by instructions dated 14.12.2012, had already included divorced daughters as eligible dependents for certain defence pensions (liberalised/special family pension) beyond the age of 25, subject to conditions. This contextualized the recognition of divorced daughters as legitimate dependents in analogous pension contexts.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court therefore directed that the benefit of SSSP pension be extended to the divorced daughter, quashing orders that had stalled her pension.

The Union of India challenged this decision before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Khajani Devi and Others, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 17706 of 2017. The Supreme Court, by a speaking order dated 27.09.2019, dismissed the SLP, holding:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the impugned order adopts a progressive and socially constructive approach to give benefits to daughter who was divorced treating her at parity with the un-married daughter. We fully agree with this view.

No ground for interference is made out. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.”

This brief but explicit endorsement is crucial: it transforms the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s approach from a regional precedent into a Supreme Court-approved standard for the interpretation of the SSSP Scheme. The Madras High Court correctly emphasizes that this is not a non-speaking dismissal, but a reasoned order approving the equality of divorced and unmarried daughters under the scheme.

3.3.2 Union of India v. Kolli Uday Kumari (Delhi High Court)

The Madras High Court also cites Union of India v. Kolli Uday Kumari, Review Petition No. 21 of 2022 in LPA No. 476 of 2021, decided by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (headed by Justice Rajiv Shakdher) on 20.01.2023.

There too, the Delhi High Court had extended the benefit of the SSSP Scheme to a divorced daughter, following the logic of Khajani Devi. The Union of India filed a review, which was dismissed, reiterating that a divorced daughter must be treated on par with an unmarried daughter for the purpose of the SSSP Scheme.

By invoking Kolli Uday Kumari, the Madras High Court demonstrates that the interpretative trend among High Courts, post–Khajani Devi, is to reject the discriminatory exclusion of divorced daughters from freedom fighters’ pension.

3.3.3 Decisions cited by the Union of India

The Union of India relied upon several decisions to argue that:

a divorced daughter is not entitled to maintenance from her father, and
by analogy, she should not be treated as a dependent entitled to pension.

These include:

State of H.P. and Another v. Jafli Devi, 1997 (5) SCC 301;
Pushpaben Maganlal B. Harijan v. Union of India, 2005 Supreme (Guj) 149;
Tulsi Devi v. Union of India and Another, C.W.P. No. 1504 of 2019, Himachal Pradesh High Court, 18.07.2019;
Karthiyayani Janaki and Others v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 8275 (Kerala High Court);
The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Another v. V. Somyashree, Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021, Supreme Court, 13.09.2021;
Union of India v. Laxmibai and Another, Civil Appeal No. 2119 of 2004, Supreme Court, 03.08.2011.

The Madras High Court notes that Jafli Devi and Laxmibai concerned compassionate appointment schemes rather than freedom fighters’ pensions. Compassionate appointment schemes are intended to provide employment on the death of a serving employee to relieve sudden financial distress to the family, and are structured very differently from honorific pensions designed to recognize national service.

On this basis, the Court holds that:

These decisions do not “cover the field” of the SSSP Scheme.
Equating the rationale of denial under compassionate appointment schemes, or maintenance claims under personal law, with the special, honorific nature of freedom fighters’ pension is inappropriate.

Moreover, as regards Tulsi Devi and Karthiyayani Janaki, the Court points out that these decisions did not take into consideration the Supreme Court’s express approval in Khajani Devi. The implication is that such decisions, to the extent they deny pension to divorced daughters under the SSSP Scheme, are now on shaky ground in light of the Supreme Court’s later pronouncement.

3.3.4 Previous Madras High Court decision in W.P. No. 10344 of 2023

An important contextual decision is the Madras High Court’s earlier judgment in W.P. No. 10344 of 2023, where the same petitioner challenged rejection of freedom fighter’s pension from the State of Tamil Nadu.

In that case, by order dated 09.12.2024, the Court allowed her petition, emphasizing:

The sacrifices of her parents, both of whom suffered incarceration for the freedom of the country.
A report by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, confirming that the petitioner:
- suffers from serious cardiac issues (70–90% blockage),
- is aged, and
- requires support.
The essential point that she requires support not merely as an individual but in recognition of the sacrifices made by her parents.

This previous decision is significant because it settles the factual issue that the petitioner is in impoverished circumstances and is a genuine dependent. Justice Lakshminarayanan explicitly notes that the second criterion (impoverishment) is already answered in her favour by that judgment and the Tahsildar’s report.

3.4 Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.4.1 Factual foundation: No dispute as to sacrifices and dependency

The Court begins by accepting the undisputed facts:

The petitioner’s father and mother are recognized freedom fighters, who suffered incarceration at the hands of the British.
The mother was receiving freedom fighters’ pension from both the State and Central Governments.
The petitioner lived with and was dependent on her parents, and returned to India after a divorce obtained abroad.
The petitioner is in impoverished circumstances and in serious ill health, as already recorded in W.P. No. 10344 of 2023.

This narrows the controversy to a pure question of law: whether her status as a divorced daughter can be used as a disqualifying factor.

3.4.2 The Union’s argument: Maintenance from husband not father

The Union of India’s core contention, captured in paragraph 15 of the judgment, is:

Once a woman is married, her primary right to maintenance is against her husband, not her father.
Therefore, she cannot be treated as a dependent of her father after her marriage.
On this assumption, divorced daughters are excluded by Clause 5.2.5.

The Court notes that this line of reasoning had already been considered and rejected in Khajani Devi. The legal and conceptual flaw is that freedom fighters’ pension is not a form of maintenance governed by family law. It is a State-conferred honour recognizing national service, and any classification among dependents must be justified by the purpose of the scheme, not by rigid notions of private maintenance obligations.

3.4.3 Application of Khajani Devi and the Supreme Court’s “progressive” endorsement

Justice Lakshminarayanan places Khajani Devi at the centre of his reasoning:

He recites the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s analysis that excluding a divorced daughter while including an unmarried daughter is a travesty and lacks rationality.
He highlights the court’s approach that a beneficial scheme must not be construed strictly so as to frustrate its laudable object.
He then reproduces the Supreme Court’s speaking order, where the apex court states:
- it agrees with the “progressive and socially constructive approach”; and
- accepts the parity between divorced and unmarried daughters.

From this, the Madras High Court draws two key conclusions:

The Supreme Court has affirmatively endorsed the view that divorced daughters are to be treated on par with unmarried daughters under the SSSP Scheme.
This view is not confined to the facts of Khajani Devi but reflects a general constitutional and purposive approach to interpreting the scheme.

3.4.4 Judicial discipline and the binding effect of the Supreme Court’s order

In paragraph 24, the Court underscores the principle of judicial discipline:

“When the Supreme Court has spoken, Judicial discipline requires that I adopt the same view and not attempt to distinguish the same, as sought to be done by the learned Deputy Solicitor General.”

This statement is significant for two reasons:

It confirms that even a short, speaking dismissal of an SLP is binding for High Courts on the point it expressly decides.
It signals that attempts by counsel to distinguish Khajani Devi on factual or formal grounds are inappropriate where the underlying legal principle – equating divorced with unmarried daughters under the SSSP Scheme – has been explicitly approved by the Supreme Court.

3.4.5 Distinguishing compassionate appointment and other contexts

The Court then turns to the precedents relied upon by the Union of India and clarifies that:

Jafli Devi and Laxmibai related to compassionate appointment schemes of Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka, not to freedom fighters’ pension.
Compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment rules, justifiable on narrow grounds of immediate financial distress, and need not follow the same equality parameters as an honorific national recognition scheme like SSSP.
Therefore, drawing parallels from such cases to deny pension under the SSSP Scheme is misplaced.
Similarly, Tulsi Devi and Karthiyayani Janaki did not incorporate or grapple with the Supreme Court’s later endorsement of Khajani Devi, weakening their persuasive value on the specific issue of divorced daughters’ eligibility under the SSSP Scheme.

In essence, the Court refuses to allow maintenance law or compassionate appointment jurisprudence to control the interpretation of a freedom fighter recognition scheme.

3.4.6 Beneficial and purposive interpretation of the SSSP Scheme

The judgment is anchored in the principle that beneficial schemes must be construed liberally. The object of the SSSP Scheme is not merely to alleviate poverty, but to:

honour the sacrifices of those who fought for India’s freedom, and
ensure a life of dignity to their dependents.

The artificial exclusion of a divorced daughter, especially when she is the sole surviving dependent, runs counter to that purpose. The Court accepts the reasoning of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that:

The “one dependent only” logic of the scheme means the authorities must pick the most appropriate dependent, not introduce arbitrary moral distinctions.
There is “no rationality” in including an unmarried daughter but excluding a divorced daughter in identical or worse economic conditions.

The Madras High Court therefore embraces a purposive and constitutionally consistent construction of the SSSP Scheme, in which:

the status of being divorced cannot, by itself, disqualify a daughter; and
what matters is actual dependency and impoverishment.

3.4.7 Application to the petitioner and implicit treatment of Clause 5.2.5

Applying this interpretation to the present facts:

The petitioner is a divorced daughter who:
- was dependent on her parents during their lifetimes,
- is in impoverished circumstances, and
- is the legitimate recipient of her deceased mother’s pension.
The only bar to her receiving the pension is the textual exclusion in Clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines.

While the Court does not explicitly pronounce that Clause 5.2.5 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21, its reasoning has the effect of:

Holding that a blanket exclusion of divorced daughters is impermissible where they are otherwise dependent; and
Reading the scheme, in light of Khajani Devi and constitutional principles, to include divorced daughters on par with unmarried daughters.

Thus, Clause 5.2.5 cannot be applied in its literal form to deny SSSP pension to a divorced daughter in the petitioner’s situation. In practical terms, the clause is read down or rendered inoperative to that extent.

3.5 Operative Directions and Administrative Mechanism

The Court’s final directions are twofold: substantive and procedural.

3.5.1 Substantive entitlement

The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order of the Central Government rejecting the petitioner’s claim is quashed.
The petitioner is held entitled to SSSP pension from the date of her application, 27.01.2023.

3.5.2 Procedural roadmap

To operationalize this entitlement, the Court prescribes a timeline:

The respondent (Union of India) is given eight weeks to “do the needful”, i.e., process the pension claim in accordance with this judgment.
The respondent shall immediately forward the relevant papers to the State of Tamil Nadu.
The State of Tamil Nadu shall, within four weeks from receipt:
- conduct an enquiry; and
- submit a report on:
  - whether the petitioner is in impoverished circumstances; and
  - whether she was dependent on her parents during their lifetime.
Upon receipt of the State’s report, the Central Government shall pass appropriate orders within four months.

This two-tier process reflects the federal structure of the scheme, where the State Government’s verification of factual aspects (dependency and impoverishment) feeds into the Centre’s final decision on pension grant.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Writ of Declaration under Article 226

A writ of declaration is a judicial order in which a High Court declares a law, rule, guideline, or governmental action to be invalid or unconstitutional, or clarifies the legal position concerning rights and obligations.

In this case, the petitioner sought a declaration that Clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines, excluding divorced daughters from the SSSP pension, is illegal and unconstitutional. Even though the judgment does not explicitly use the language of “striking down”, the Court’s interpretation effectively achieves the purpose by:

refusing to give effect to the exclusion in Clause 5.2.5 in the case of divorced daughters who are otherwise eligible dependents.

4.2 Article 14 and “reasonable classification”

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It allows reasonable classification, but such classification must:

be based on an intelligible differentia (a clear, rational distinguishing factor); and
have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the law or scheme.

Here, the scheme’s object is to honour freedom fighters by supporting their dependents. The classification between:

unmarried dependent daughters (eligible); and
divorced dependent daughters (ineligible),

has no rational nexus with that object. Both categories can be equally dependent and impoverished. Excluding divorced daughters is therefore arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14, as recognized in Khajani Devi and endorsed by the Supreme Court.

4.3 Beneficial schemes and purposive interpretation

A beneficial scheme is one designed to confer benefits on a vulnerable or deserving class – here, freedom fighters and their dependents. Courts have repeatedly held that:

such schemes must be interpreted liberally in favour of beneficiaries, and
should not be constrained by overly technical or narrow interpretations that undermine their purpose.

In this judgment, the Court applies this principle by:

rejecting a literal and rigid application of Clause 5.2.5; and
adopting a purposive reading that includes divorced daughters where they are dependent and impoverished.

4.4 Speaking dismissal of an SLP and its precedential value

When the Supreme Court dismisses a Special Leave Petition (SLP):

A non-speaking dismissal (without reasons) generally does not lay down a binding precedent on the legal issues involved.
A speaking dismissal, where the Court gives reasons, may affirm the legal principle relied upon in the lower court’s decision and is treated as having precedential value.

In Union of India v. Khajani Devi, the Supreme Court did not simply say “SLP dismissed”; it explicitly agreed with the “progressive and socially constructive approach” of equating divorced and unmarried daughters. This is a speaking order. The Madras High Court rightly treats it as binding guidance that must be followed.

4.5 Dependency and family pension vs. personal law “maintenance”

The Union’s argument conflated two distinct concepts:

Maintenance under personal law (e.g., a wife’s right to be maintained by her husband, or a child’s right to be maintained by parents), and
Pension under a public scheme, such as the SSSP Scheme.

While personal law may stipulate that a divorced woman can claim maintenance from her ex-husband, this does not logically determine her eligibility under a State pension scheme. In pension schemes, “dependent” status is defined by:

actual financial reliance; and
the objectives of the scheme (here, honouring freedom fighters by supporting their families).

The Court therefore rejects the notion that the mere possibility of a maintenance claim against a husband should disqualify a divorced daughter from being recognized as a dependent under the SSSP Scheme.

4.6 Compassionate appointment vs. honorific pension for freedom fighters

Compassionate appointment is a system where a dependent of a deceased employee is offered a government job to mitigate immediate financial hardship. It:

is an exception to the usual recruitment process;
is governed by strict policy norms; and
is often interpreted restrictively to avoid abuse or over-expansion.

In contrast, freedom fighters’ pension:

is a recognition of national service, not of government employment;
is meant to honour sacrifices made during the freedom struggle; and
has a moral and symbolic dimension distinct from employment-related benefits.

The Madras High Court highlights that using compassionate appointment jurisprudence to constrain the SSSP Scheme would be incongruous and ignores the distinct purpose and character of the pension.

5. Impact and Significance

5.1 Consolidation of the law on divorced daughters under the SSSP Scheme

This judgment, read with Khajani Devi (P&H), the Supreme Court’s speaking order, and Kolli Uday Kumari (Delhi HC), contributes to a coherent national position:

Divorced daughters, if otherwise dependent and impoverished, are to be treated on par with unmarried daughters under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.

For future cases involving:

divorced daughters,
widowed daughters, or
other similarly placed female dependents,

this line of authority will be a strong basis to challenge exclusions that lack a rational nexus to the scheme’s object.

5.2 Implications for Clause 5.2.5 and similar exclusions

Although the Madras High Court does not explicitly strike down Clause 5.2.5, its interpretive approach creates substantial pressure on the Union of India to:

amend or withdraw Clause 5.2.5 to align it with:
- the Supreme Court’s endorsement in Khajani Devi, and
- the emerging judicial consensus from multiple High Courts.
apply the SSSP Scheme in a manner that does not discriminate against:
- divorced daughters, and possibly
- widowed daughters, in analogous situations.

In practice, any future attempt to deny SSSP pension solely on the basis of a daughter’s divorced status will be vulnerable to challenge under Article 14, using this decision and the earlier national authorities.

5.3 Advancement of gender justice in pension and welfare schemes

The decision carries broader implications for gender justice:

It rejects a patriarchal assumption that a woman’s entitlement to support is exhausted once she marries, irrespective of what happens thereafter.
It recognizes that marital breakdown can leave a woman in greater vulnerability than if she had never married.
By aligning divorced daughters with unmarried daughters, it counters moralistic or stigmatizing distinctions and focuses on actual dependency and need.

These principles are likely to influence interpretation of other pension and welfare schemes where daughters, widows, or other female dependents are treated differently on the basis of marital status alone.

5.4 Guidance for scheme drafters and administrators

For policymakers and administrators, this judgment sends clear signals:

Beneficial schemes must be drafted and applied in line with:
- Article 14 (non-arbitrariness and reasonable classification), and
- Article 21 (right to live with dignity).
Exclusions based on marital status (married vs unmarried vs divorced vs widowed) must be tested against:
- whether they truly serve the object of the scheme, and
- whether they respect the dignity and autonomy of women.
Where the Supreme Court has adopted a “progressive and socially constructive” view in interpreting a scheme, administrators should proactively align their practice instead of resisting until compelled by litigation.

5.5 Federal coordination in freedom fighters’ pension cases

The directions to:

forward the file to the State of Tamil Nadu; and
obtain a report on impoverishment and dependency;

highlight the cooperative federalism inherent in the administration of the SSSP Scheme. The Centre relies on State-level verification for factual aspects, while retaining final decision-making power on pension sanction.

Courts may increasingly insist on clear, timely communication between State and Centre so that genuine claimants, especially elderly or ill dependents of freedom fighters, are not left in limbo.

6. Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision in Thillai Lokanathan v. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs reinforces and extends a vital constitutional and jurisprudential development: divorced daughters, when otherwise dependent and impoverished, cannot be arbitrarily excluded from the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme merely because they were once married.

By:

embracing the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s reasoning in Khajani Devi,
relying on the Supreme Court’s explicit approval of that reasoning,
aligning with the Delhi High Court’s approach in Kolli Uday Kumari, and
distinguishing inapposite precedents from compassionate appointment and maintenance contexts,

the Court adopts a progressive, socially constructive, and purposive interpretation of the SSSP Scheme that honours both the sacrifices of freedom fighters and the dignity and equality of their dependents.

Although the judgment does not formally strike down Clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines, it effectively reads down its exclusionary effect vis-à-vis divorced daughters. For all practical purposes, in the context of the SSSP Scheme, the law now stands that:

Unmarried and divorced dependent daughters are to be treated on an equal footing when determining eligibility for freedom fighters’ Samman pension.

The decision thus represents an important step in aligning social-welfare jurisprudence with constitutional equality, gender justice, and the lived realities of vulnerable women, while reaffirming judicial fidelity to the Supreme Court’s “progressive and socially constructive” interpretive directions.