A soldier must not be fighting the state

WHEN a disabled veteran or a family is forced to fight another battle, not on the frontline, but in the court, something is broken in our system that vocally applauds the soldier but entangles him in litigation after retirement. In several recent rulings, the courts have cautioned the government against its persistent practice of contesting nearly every Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) ruling that grants pensionary relief to soldiers. This observation was made when the Delhi High Court was hearing the case of Major Sanjeev Chadha, who had died 25 years ago.

In another case last month, the Delhi High Court dismissed 300 petitions filed by the Defence Ministry challenging the AFT's order granting disability pension. The court noted, "It is not an act of generosity, but a rightful and just acknowledgement of the sacrifices endured by them, which manifests in the form of disabilities/disorders suffered during their military service…. It is a measure that upholds the state's responsibility towards its soldiers, who have served the nation with courage and devotion."

This is the real issue before us — the responsibility of the state towards the soldiers. However, before we turn to this, we must also understand why special consideration should be made towards the members of the military.

The military is entrusted with the exercise of ultimate violence on behalf of the nation. Irresponsible behaviour on its part could weaken a nation's security and well-being. There must, therefore, be a set of codified values that serve as a guide to members of the military — the military ethic. This ethic accepts the supremacy of the political government, is corporative in spirit, and emphasises loyalty and obedience. However, the foremost element of the military ethic is the concept of "unlimited liability."

"Unlimited liability" means that all members of the military accept that they can be lawfully ordered to go into conditions which could lead to their death. This is a uniquely military provision that sets it apart from any other profession and is at the heart of understanding the meaning of duty as a soldier sees it. The fundamental nature of soldiering is not the capacity to take lives (though necessary for victory) but the willingness to die.

We must also ask ourselves what keeps individual soldiers going in the most difficult of conditions along the Himalayan watershed, the icy heights of Siachen, patrolling in waist-deep snow during counterterrorist operations in Kashmir, and engaging in artillery duels at the Line of Control. What keeps them going is a powerful sense of purpose that their duty serves a cause far greater than their own hardship. They are defending the honour of their country, aware that the safety of the nation rests on the resolve of each soldier.

What does a soldier ask in return from the state? That he be treated with honour, respect and dignity. If he is injured or loses his life, he or his family will be looked after. This mutual obligation is referred to as the "Military Covenant". This interplay between the soldier and the state creates an unbreakable bond that has sustained the military throughout India's independent history.

The ‘Military Covenant’ is not only applicable to men in uniform, but more critically, also to those out of uniform. It is the veterans, living in thousands of villages across the country, without the institutional support that a serving soldier enjoys, who deserve the state's obligations the most. Unfortunately, the spectacle of thousands of them who have bled for the flag now pleading before judges is distressing. Major Sanjeev Chadha's family had to wait a quarter century before justice was delivered.

In 2015, the government promised to reduce litigation and improve the system of addressing grievances among the military veterans. The Raksha Mantri constituted a Committee of Experts, and among the 32 recommendations that were accepted was the withdrawal of litigation in all cases that had been settled by the courts. However, little has changed.

In September 2023, new entitlement rules were issued for the grant of disability pension for the armed forces. Instead of taking note of the conditions under which soldiers operate, the rules have narrowed eligibility conditions. They create an unjust imbalance compared to civilian employees, who continue to receive broader protections recognising work-related health issues without such stringent conditions. A month after the new rules were promulgated, it was reported that the Ministry of Defence had directed the Army to file writ petitions challenging all orders passed in favour of the disabled soldiers by the AFTs.

The problem is compounded by a refusal to accept the decisions of the AFT. In October 2024, the AFT Principal Bench in New Delhi issued summons to the Army Chief and the Defence Secretary. The Bench remarked, "We find that the respondents in more than 6,500 cases pending before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and 10 other Regional Benches are not implementing the orders passed by this Tribunal."

The justification often given by officials is that there is an exploitation of disability benefits by "unscrupulous personnel" and a rise in "personnel seeking disability, even for lifestyle diseases." This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny, considering the large number of cases where the courts have dismissed the MoD's challenges to AFT rulings.

The MoD must, therefore, review its policy on disability entitlement, both to curb any misuse and become more sensitive to soldiers whose health is bound to be affected by the hazardous conditions under which they operate. This should not merely be a technical exercise, but a moral one.

It is often argued that the military is a large organisation, and the financial implications of implementing the court orders would put additional pressure on the already stressed revenue budget. Counting rupees while discounting justice is a false calculus. Every contested order clogs courts, delays rehabilitation and undermines the trust between the soldier and the state. A soldier's last fight must not be against his own state.

Lt Gen DS Hooda (retd) is former Northern Army Commander.