When a soldier is wounded or succumbs to illness in service, a disability pension should not be dismissed as mere handout — it is the state’s solemn promise that when uniforms exact their price, the nation will not abandon those who paid it. But in practice today, that compact is fraying under legal assaults.
Litigation instead of gratitude
Instead of honouring this obligation, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) increasingly contests disability pension claims in court. Veterans — many in their twilight years or afflicted by chronic conditions — are thrust into prolonged legal battles against the very government they once served. The symbolism is corrosive: what should be care becomes suspicion; what should be recognition becomes litigation.
In a landmark ruling earlier this year, the Delhi High Court dismissed nearly 300 writ petitions filed by the MoD challenging decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The AFT had awarded disability pensions to veterans suffering from conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, psychiatric disorders and cardiac diseases.
The High Court reaffirmed that disability pensions are not acts of benevolence but rights: unless a medical board conclusively proves that a disease predated service and bears no relation to duty, a claim cannot be rejected.
This was hardly the only rebuke. The Telangana High Court recently upheld the claim of a 75-year-old veteran whose disability arose from a 1971 road accident, rejecting the MoD’s plea that injuries on leave were not service-connected. In Hyderabad, a high-court bench affirmed a veteran’s entitlement to pension despite procedural hurdles, noting service aggravation of disease and ordering arrears with interest.
Similarly, in Delhi, the High Court directed the government to grant disability pension to a former Army Nursing Officer who had been denied benefits on grounds of obesity and hypertension, rejecting the assumption that the ailments were “lifestyle” conditions. Moreover, in a recent decision involving an Air Force veteran, the court held that the burden cannot shift to the soldier to prove the origin of the illness — the presumption should favour the serviceman unless convincingly rebutted.
Policy changes deepen the fault lines
These judicial defeats reflect deeper tensions embedded in MoD’s 2023 rules — the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension and Disability Compensation, 2023 (ER 2023) — which revamped eligibility in a way many see as a rollback. The new rules redefine “disability” as “impairment,” sharply narrowing the claims accepted. Conditions thought to emerge from service stress, repeated exposure, and continuous strain have been excluded. Lifestyle diseases such as diabetes now lie outside the scope unless tied to extreme postings (e.g., high-altitude duty).
Also troubling is the reinstatement of a 10-year minimum service requirement for invalid pensions, effectively denying compensation to those invalided out early due to grave injury or illness. Veterans’ bodies, including the All India Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association, have denounced the policy as discriminatory and capricious.
In contrast, civilian pension schemes — for example, under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) regulations — continue to cover stress-related ailments and lifestyle diseases. The discrepancy raises a sharp moral question: why is the state more protective of a bureaucrat’s health than that of a soldier’s?
Courts propping up a broken compact
It is no surprise that the courts have repeatedly been compelled to intervene. In many cases, the judiciary has become the last bulwark against bureaucratic retrenchment.
In its July 2025 verdict, the Delhi High Court characterised the government’s repeated appeals against AFT orders in favour of veterans as a “waste of public money and judicial time.” In the Telangana case, the High Court sternly rejected the MoD’s contention that an injury on leave could be carved out of service causation. In Punjab and Haryana, the High Court held recently that a soldier’s refusal to undergo spinal surgery — when the Army’s own review found that the decision would not alter disability percentages — cannot be used to deny pension.
Such judgments underscore a recurrent judicial principle: the armed forces must be granted the benefit of doubt, and the presumption should favour the serviceman unless the medical board’s reasoning is rock-solid.
Still, the invisible toll is heavy. Veterans forced into court must navigate procedural delays, legal costs and emotional strain. Their dependents — often aged, ailing, or bereft of alternative income — watch as state machinery regards their rights not with dignity but with suspicion.
The human cost beneath the legal fog
Disability pensions are not merely financial transfers; they represent the state’s admission that military duty is uniquely hazardous — often in ways invisible to the untrained eye. Chronic exposure, frequent deployments, extreme climates, psychological stress, metabolic burnout — these are the hidden costs of uniformed life. To deny compensation for them is to deny the very texture of service.
Consider the case of Balram Singh, a former soldier whose visual impairment (30 %) was recognised by a medical board decades ago, only to be denied pension by the accounts department. After 32 years of legal struggle, the AFT finally awarded him the pension, plus 8% interest on the arrears. Or take the example of Sham Singh, a 1971 veteran whose war injury (including loss of eyesight) was denied on delay grounds. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the delay argument, observing that expecting an injured veteran to claim belatedly is unjust.
These are not isolated anomalies; they are distress signals.
Beyond technicalities: trust, morale, and national honour
For serving personnel, the spectacle of disabled veterans — comrades, seniors, sometimes widows — dragged into court sends a devastating message: loyalty is conditional, sacrifice is convertible to litigation, not gratitude. In battle, hesitation under fire cannot be afforded; the moral scaffold that backs a soldier beyond the battlefield is part of readiness itself.
By forcing veterans to prove their worthiness, the state risks corroding the very identity of service. The message becomes: you will not be trusted unless you sue us, and then only after proving your value in an adversarial forum.
Courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle: disability pensions are not charity, they are entitlements. Yet until the MoD abandons its reflexive opposition, the government will find itself — not just before judges — but in the court of public conscience.