The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a ₹50,000 penalty on the Union government and the Indian Army for forcing the widow of a deceased soldier to engage in unnecessary litigation. The case involved the appeal of the government and the army against a tribunal’s decision that had granted the widow a liberalised pension following her husband’s death during a counter-terrorism patrol in Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih expressed dismay over the government’s handling of the case, noting that the widow, who had already suffered the loss of her husband, should not have been dragged into prolonged legal proceedings. The bench stated, “In our view, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision-making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness.” As a result, the Court imposed a penalty of ₹50,000, which is to be paid to the widow by the government and the army.
The case dates back to January 2013, when Naik Inderjeet Singh died of a cardiac arrest while on a counter-terrorism patrol in extreme weather conditions. His commanding officer had classified his death as a “battle casualty,” but Singh’s widow was initially granted only a special family pension, which provides lower benefits compared to the liberalised pension for families of soldiers who die in combat or under extreme conditions.
The widow challenged this decision before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which ruled in 2019 that she was entitled to the liberalised family pension, along with arrears and compensation. The government and the army then appealed the AFT’s decision before the Supreme Court.
Rejecting the appeal, the Court upheld the AFT’s ruling, emphasizing that Singh’s death occurred during operational duty in extreme climatic conditions near the Line of Control (LoC), which qualified it as a “battle casualty.” The Court also referred to certificates from Singh’s commanding officer, which confirmed that his death was caused by illness due to the harsh weather conditions while on operational duty. The Court directed the government to grant the widow the liberalised pension within three months and to pay the ₹50,000 penalty within two months.
The Supreme Court also criticized the government’s approach, which it described as “harsh” and lacking an effective internal mechanism to filter unnecessary appeals. “He was a soldier of this country, and he worked for you. How can you come in appeal in a matter like this?” the Court remarked during a previous hearing.
In its defense, the government argued that granting liberalised pensions in all cases would undermine the recognition given to soldiers who die in active combat. However, the Court dismissed this argument, noting that precedents cited by the government, such as the 2019 Kanchan Dua case, involved different factual circumstances, where the deaths were not caused by extreme climatic conditions.
The ruling underscores the importance of supporting the families of soldiers who die in the line of duty and highlights the Court’s disapproval of unnecessary delays in granting rightful benefits.
