SC penalises Centre, Army with ₹50,000 for litigation against soldier’s widow

The case pertained to Naik Inderjeet Singh, who suffered a cardiac arrest while patrolling in extreme weather conditions in January 2013

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a ₹50,000 penalty on the Union government and the Indian Army for forcing a soldier’s widow into unnecessary litigation and dismissed their appeal against a tribunal’s decision granting her a liberalised pension after her husband’s death during a counter-terrorism patrol in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Centre and the army had filed an appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision of 2019 before the Supreme Court. (ANI)

“In our view, in a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision-making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness. Therefore, we propose to impose costs quantified as ₹50,000, which will be payable to the respondent (widow),” a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih said.

The case pertained to Naik Inderjeet Singh, who suffered a cardiac arrest while patrolling in extreme weather conditions in January 2013. His commanding officer classified the death as a “battle casualty” but Singh’s widow was granted only a special family pension instead of the liberalised family pension, which provides higher benefits.

Singh’s widow challenged the decision before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which in 2019 directed the army to grant her liberalised pension along with arrears and compensation. The Centre and the army filed an appeal against the AFT’s decision before the Supreme Court.

Rejecting the appeal, the court emphasised that Singh’s death occurred in extreme climatic conditions while performing operational duties near the LoC. It affirmed the AFT’s finding that Singh’s demise qualified as a “battle casualty”, which entitled his family to higher pension benefits under applicable army orders.

The court referred to certificates from Singh’s commanding officer, which confirmed that the soldier was on operational duty under war-like conditions and succumbed to illness caused by extreme weather. It concluded that his death fell within the scope of “battle casualties” defined under Army Order 1 of 2003.

It directed the Centre to grant Naik’s widow the liberalised pension within three months and pay ₹50,000 in costs to Singh’s widow within two months.

In an earlier hearing on November 21, the court flagged the government’s approach in such cases, describing it as “harsh” and criticised the lack of an internal mechanism to filter unnecessary appeals. “It’s very, very harsh. He was a soldier of this country, and he worked for you. How can you come in appeal in a matter like this?” it asked.

Defending its move, additional solicitor general Vikramjeet Banerjee, representing the government, argued that the distinction between “battle casualty” and “physical casualty” had been upheld in the 2019 Kanchan Dua judgment. He contended that granting liberalised pensions in all cases could undermine the recognition accorded to soldiers who die in live combat or hostile operations.

However, the court judgment on Tuesday dismissed the government’s reliance on precedents such as the 2019 Kanchan Dua case, noting that those cases involved distinct factual circumstances. “In the first case, the deceased was found dead in his room. In the second case, the death was not caused by extreme climatic conditions,” the court said.