The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Union government to grant a ‘war injury pension’ to an Indian Army veteran who had developed “rheumatoid arthritis” during his posting at Kargil, ruling that the government cannot interpret its own policy in a way that “contradicts its plain wording” or leads to “arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory outcomes.”
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed an appeal filed by the Union government challenging previous orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the High Court that had directed it to pay the veteran, Narendra Kumar, a war injury pension instead of disability pension. The Court, however, refused to accept such submission. The Tribunal allowed his claim in April 2024, finding that the ailment originated at Kargil where Kumar was posted. The High Court upheld this in August 2025. The Court also declined to rely on Army Order 01 of 2003, which the Union cited to argue that battle casualty reports are not initiated in ongoing operations.
“While interpreting the plain language of the policy, Courts will simply declare what a policy says it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker,” the Court said. The Union government, however, moved the Supreme Court challenging the orders and arguing that the 2001 policy letter covered only “specifically notified operations such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard,” and not ongoing operations like ‘Rakshak” in Jammu and Kashmir or “Rhino” in Assam. It said that Category E(i) of the policy letter that dealt with the pension and notified operations was an “enabling provision, meant to give the government flexibility to cover war-like situations. It also said that once an operation was notified, the provision applies to it unless the policy or the notification says otherwise. The Court also said that apart from the Union government’s “oral submissions,” it found nothing to exclude Operation Rakshak. It said the order “causes more confusion than it clarifies.”
