Draw up litigation policy for forces or face fines, govt told

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Union government for its repeated practice of taking retired armed forces personnel and their families to court over disputes related to pensions and disability benefits. Expressing deep concern over the impact of such litigation on the morale of the armed forces, the court directed the Centre to consider framing a litigation policy to prevent unnecessary legal battles against veterans.

A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also warned that if the government failed to take corrective action, the court would start imposing fines on frivolous appeals.

The court’s anguish came while hearing an appeal filed by the Union of India against an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order in 2021 granting disability pension to a retired radio fitter. Questioning the Centre’s approach, the bench stressed that a pragmatic view was necessary, especially when personnel had served for 15 to 20 years before developing disabilities.

“Why should these persons be dragged to the Supreme Court? There should be some discretion. There should be some policy on who is taken to this court. Maybe in cases where there are high salaries and higher financial implications, the government can decide to appeal. But not in every case,” it remarked.

The court expressed concern about the message such litigation sent to armed forces personnel. “Members of the armed forces notice that their services are taken, and when they develop disabilities, they are first made to go to the Tribunal. Even when they succeed there, they are dragged to this court. What effect does this have on their morale?” it asked the counsel appearing for the Centre.

The bench then directed the Union government to clarify whether it was willing to frame a litigation policy on such matters. It warned that if no decision was taken, the court would begin imposing heavy costs whenever it found the appeals to be unjustified.

There are around 3,000 pending appeals by the defence ministry in several high courts and the apex court regarding death and disability benefits awarded by different tribunals, HT has learnt.

In its formal order on Thursday, the Supreme Court noted that several appeals were being filed by the Union government against AFT orders granting disability pensions to service members who had served for several years before being invalidated due to medical conditions.

Observing that AFT benches comprise senior retired armed forces officers along with former high court judges, the court questioned the logic behind repeatedly challenging their orders. “Each and every member of the armed forces who gets relief from the tribunal need not be dragged to this court,” the order stated.

Drawing a parallel with tax matters, where the government has a structured litigation policy to limit unnecessary appeals, the court noted that the Centre must evolve a similar policy for armed forces cases. It directed the government to inform the court whether such a policy decision would be taken before the next hearing.

Thursday’s hearing marked the second time this month that the Supreme Court has chastised the government over its treatment of pension-related cases involving military personnel.

On January 6, the same bench took exception to the Centre’s practice of dragging veterans and their families into prolonged legal battles over pension disputes. The bench called for a policy intervention, lamenting that service members who had dedicated their lives to the nation should not be subjected to such treatment.

“As it is, there are only a few people willing to serve in the armed forces. Why should the Union drag such people to this court? They have served the Union after all. Day in and day out, these matters are brought here,” the bench observed at the time.

The January 6 case involved a retired Indian Air Force officer who was diagnosed with hypertension and diabetes after serving for more than three decades.

In December 2023, the top court imposed a ₹50,000 fine on the government and the Indian Army for forcing a soldier’s widow into unnecessary litigation. The woman fought for years to secure a liberalised family pension after her husband died during a counterterrorism patrol in Jammu & Kashmir, and the bench slammed the government for relying on technical distinctions to deny rightful benefits to soldiers who died in challenging conditions while on duty.