The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre's appeal and upheld a Kargil veteran's war injury pension. It also urged the defence ministry to codify clear service rules for fairness and good governance.Stock photo used for illustrationNewdelhi,Oct 28, 2026 19:44 ISTThe Supreme Court has said the Ministry of Defence should issue comprehensive and clearly identifiable rules governing the services, citing continued uncertainty over which of its rules, regulations, instructions and policies apply, news agency Press Trust of India reported.A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observation while dismissing the Centre's plea against the grant of war injury pension to an Indian Army personnel who developed rheumatoid arthritis after being posted in Kargil as part of Operation Rakshak.“As usual, there is uncertainty about which rules, regulations, instructions and policies of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are applicable.
We continue to wonder why this uncertainty about applicable rules continues,” the bench said in its judgment.“It is high time that the MoD issues a comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services. This is necessary for fairness in action and also for good governance,” it added.
According to PTI, the Centre had challenged decisions by the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting the respondent war injury pension instead of the disability pension already awarded to him for rheumatoid arthritis.The respondent joined the Indian Army in December 1996 and was posted in Kargil from July 2003 to July 2005, when he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. After more than 16 years of service, he was discharged in 2013 and granted disability pension comprising service and disability components.
About six years later, he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking war injury pension, arguing that his disability was a direct consequence of his Kargil posting between 2003 and 2005.The Ministry of Defence opposed the application on several grounds. It argued that he was not entitled to war injury pension because his disability was not covered under Category E(i), Paragraph 4.1 of the ministry's policy letter dated January 31, 2001.In April 2024, the tribunal allowed his application, holding that rheumatoid arthritis had developed in January 2005 while he was serving in Kargil.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court later dismissed the Centre's challenge, saying the release medical board's opinion showed that the condition had developed during his Kargil posting.The Supreme Court said the dispute concerned the scope of sub-category E(i), which relates to “operations specially notified by the government from time to time”. The ministry argued that the category covered only operations specifically notified by the government, such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard, and not continuing operations such as Operation Rakshak, covering the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, or Operation Rhino, covering the whole of Assam.“There is no doubt about the fact that the power and jurisdiction to prescribe applicability of a policy to the concerned personnel or the conditions for its applicability are completely within the province of the defence administration.
However, the policy formulations must clearly articulate their scope, ambit and application,” the bench said.The court said that when a question arises over whether a policy applies, the primary responsibility lies with the policy maker to explain the circumstances in which a benefit would or would not be available. It said courts would normally not interfere with the policy maker's interpretation unless it went beyond a reasonable reading of the policy's plain language.“If the policy maker interprets its own policy against the plain language or in a manner that could be discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational or goes against the very purpose and object of the policy, the courts will disregard the interpretation offered by the policy maker,” the bench said.“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 policy maker,” it added while dismissing the Centre's plea.The Supreme Court thus upheld the grant of war injury pension to the respondent and called on the Ministry of Defence to frame comprehensive and clearly identifiable rules to remove uncertainty over the policies governing the services.- Ends