Supreme court Asks Union Govt To Pay Rs 10 Lakhs To Man Who Claimed To Have Spent 14 Years In Pakistan Jail As Indian Spy

The Supreme Court, on Monday, directed the Union Government to pay ex gratia payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to a man who claimed that he was deputed to Pakistan for a covert mission where he was arrested and kept imprisoned for 14 years. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat. 

Petitioner's case

The petition was a man named Mahmood Ansari hailing from Rajasthan.

The petitioner's case was that he was appointed in the Postal Department in 1966. In 1972, he received an offer from the Special Bureau of Intelligence, Government of India to render his services towards nation as per which, he was deputed to Pakistan for a covert operation. He was fortunate enough to complete the job assigned to him twice but on third occasion when he was sent to Pakistan, he was unfortunately intercepted by the Pakistani Rangers and accordingly arrested on 23.12.1976 by the Pakistani authorities for doing espionage activities. It was the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said arrest, he was court-martialled and prosecuted under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923(of Pakistan). Accordingly, he was awarded with a 14 years rigorous imprisonment. He submitted that when was released from Pakistan Jail in 1989 and approached the authorities to resume his services, he was informed that his services were terminated on 31.7.1980 which he could not challenge in time. In 2000, the Administrative Tribunal rejected his plea for reinstatement and backwages. In 2017, the Rajasthan High Court too dismissed his plea citing long delay and lack of jurisdiction. Following this, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in 2018.

Arguments in Court

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the State submitted that records showed the payment slips and that the petitioner was paid on 19th November 1976 last and, 1977 onwards the petitioner did not collect his salary. ASG Banerjee maintained the stance that the state had "nothing to do" with the petitioner and stated–

"On merits of the matter, one of the records is the letters which were exchanged. It is very suspicious that some of these are letters which were sent from jail from the other side, claiming that we are in jail, I am locked in espionage activity so please ensure that my job...to me a large number of letters, including the letters which were representation made by my learned friend's client's wife to various ministers concerned- all the while with great detail saying that I am being arrested in espionage activity- these are very strange. One, he's actually from jail saying this. To me it seems very very strange that a person could write this sort of letter from a foreign jail...If he was writing letters he obviously had clearance."

CJI Lalit, however, noted that–

"You accept that the man was under your employment, so the second part you accept was that you sought to terminate his services as he remained absent. You take that action in 1980 even though the absence was from 1976. When did you first intimate him or his dependants or his wife about this? All this while when he remained absent, did you send the petitioner's salary and emoluments to his wife?"

ASG Banerjee answered this query by stating that the petitioner did not collect the salary. The court also noted that representation was made to several officials such as Chief Minister and Home Minister about his absence by his wife. Further, Justice Bhat, on ASG's insistence that the State had nothing to do with the petitioner, stated–

"Standard procedure for the parent government is to never own up. It is standard procedure."

CJI Lalit added–

"In order to see the credibility issue, we would like to test it on the ground that if he says that on two previous occasions he crossed the border, went there on a mission and came back and was again taken back in service, the test of the pudding will be there. How did you treat his absence on those occasions?"

To this, ASG Banerjee remarked that all of this was a "fictitious story". CJI Lalit then said–

"But then say that the person was never absent for these two periods. All that you are saying is that it was 1976 so there are no available records...One more suspicious thing is that if he was absent from 1976, why did you take action after four years in 1980? Your termination orders of 1980."

The court then referred to the judgement of the Pakistan Court convicting the petitioner and asked the petitioner's counsel :

"Mr. Counsel, your conviction is not on the ground that an Indian national was found to be doing some espionage activities in Pakistan and therefore as a suspect he was convicted and sentenced. Your conviction is on the ground that you were a part of a regiment and as a person who was a uniformed soldier of their own regiment, you did certain acts and therefore you were court martialled and therefore punished."

Justice Bhat further remarked–

"You were a part of Pakistani rangers. If you actually went in a subversive role, you should have mentioned that."

The CJI asked for further clarification regarding the role the petitioner played and asked–

"We want you to clarify whether you were in Pakistani forces at any juncture and whether in your capacity as member of the forces there was a General Court Martial in which you were convicted? Or whether without being part of the forces you were still convicted and if so under what law because if it were an offence committed as a citizen, it would have been a civil offence and you would have been tried by a normal court, but you were tried by the GCM. We would like to be appraised of your role because there are no records. What did you do there?"

The petitioner's counsel stated that he had nothing to do with Pakistan army. He stated that he was released in 1987 and kept in embassy of India in Pakistan for two years and in 1989 he came back to India. After, taking note of the same, the court stated that they would not comment on anything else but direct the Union to grant some ex gratia amount to the petitioner. 

The court noted that–

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, based on record, in our view, ends of the justice would be made if the Respondents pay Rs 10 lakhs by way of ex gratia payment to the petitioner. The amount in question shall be handed over to the petitioner within 3 weeks from today. It is made absolutely clear that payment of this sum, shall not in any way reflect upon the liability of the respondents or the entitlement of the petitioner."

It may be noted that the bench initially said Rs 5 lakhs in the order. After the order was dictated, the counsel requested for an enhancement, saying that the petitioner is now aged 75 years and completely dependent on his daughter. "The petitoner has given his services to nation, the Government has not only disowned him but also has denied him pension", the counsel submitted.

Following this, the bench increased the amount to Rs 10 lakhs. ASG Banerjee expressed an apprehension that the direction to pay might imply that Government of India had responsibility for espionage. The bench pointed out that it has clarified that the direction will not in any way reflect upon the liability of the Union Government.

CASE TITLE: Mahmood Ansari v. Union of India | SLP(C) No. 11184/2018