Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHAKUNTLA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Decided
3 October 2005
Judges listed
R.C. LAHOTI, G.P. MATHUR, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 950 · 2005 INSC 466

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

We have heard Mr. Madan Mohan Rai who states that he is the husband of the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2005 Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Adovcate has been appointed as legal aid counsel for the petitioner. She has also been heard by us.

p. 950, margin E

We have also perused the contents of the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith. We are satisfied that the case does not call for consideration in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

p. 950, margin F

We are constrained to observe that a number of cases are being filed in this Court wherein the petitioners claim themselves to be freedom fighters and hence entitled to pension under a scheme framed by the Central Government. In most of these cases, the State Governments have found the A petitioners' not entitled to the grant of such pension and, therefore, their cases have not been recommended by the State Governments to the Central Government. By filing petitions under Articles 32 of the Constitution before this Court the State Governments are being noticed to appear and show cause here and also to produce the relevant documents. We feel that such matters, wherever the petitioners have a genuine grievance, can better be dealt with B by the High Court. Filing of such petitions in this Court directly by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution has to be discouraged.

pp. 950–951, margin G

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition in the High Court, if so advised. C R.P. Writ Petition dismissed.

p. 951