The bureaucracy must demonstrate flexibility and empathy in handling issues — in many cases, life-changing — that defence personnel and their families face
Q. ‘Why should the government not be flexible and forthcoming in implementing the rules for the benefit of all defence and security personnel?’
THE SUO MOTU JUDGEMENT
-
- In August 2025, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of the plight of officer cadets who were medically discharged during training (e.g. at NDA, IMA) due to disabilities suffered in the course of training.
-
- The Supreme Court granted these cadets medical benefits that are on a par with benefits given to ex-servicemen.
- The court asked whether such cadets should be brought under relevant disability or welfare frameworks (for example, the RPwD Act 2016) and whether insurance, compensation, rehabilitation, or even re‑induction (possibly in non‑combat roles) should be considered.
THE FACTS
1. Number of Affected Cadets: Approximately 500 cadets have been medically discharged due to disabilities sustained during training since the mid-1980s.
2. Nature of Injuries: Injuries include spinal injuries, limb loss, neurological disorders, and other life-altering conditions incurred during official military training (e.g., obstacle courses, weapons handling, drills).
3. Current Legal Status: These cadets are not considered “ex-servicemen” because they were never commissioned. They do not qualify for military pensions, ECHS (Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme), or resettlement benefits.
4. Ex-Gratia Payments: The government provides a monthly ex gratia payment, but it is generally between ₹9,000 and ₹40,000—often insufficient for long-term medical care.
5. No Insurance Coverage: Cadets are not covered under any formal insurance scheme during training—despite being in a high-risk environment.
6. Lack of Rehabilitation Pathways: There is no defined pathway for rehabilitation, education, or employment after discharge, leaving many dependent on families or NGOs.
In cases that involve monetary grants and compensation, there is always a conflict between the understanding of the organisation (read bureaucracy) of the lifelong consequences of serious medical infirmities and the reality that extant rules cannot cover all variations of human misfortune sustained in the line of military duty. The two virtues that are needed are flexibility and empathy. Here are two examples that would suffice.
The case of a mother-to-be
In 1989, this writer was a member of the committee that was in charge of the paperwork of an Indian Air Force (IAF) pilot who had died in a flying accident. His wife was expectant that time. According to the rules in force, the family pension for a widow with a living child was almost double that for a lady who did not have children. The rule book was silent on enhanced pension for a widow who was expectant and who would have the child later, and would, thus, require additional financial support within a few months. We spoke to everyone who mattered. Though everyone understood the unique issue, the answer we always got was that “rules are rules.” We were asked ‘to put up a case’ to the government for special consideration for the lady.
But why should this be a special case? Why should it not be a general rule for any such misfortune? In the event, we did just that and the rules were amended. However, it still took a few years for the change to happen.
An attitude that must change
The bureaucracy also needs to be made aware of the ‘George Fernandes solution’ when it was procrastinating on the purchase of snow scooters. George Fernandes, the then Defence Minister (1998-2001) sent the bureaucrats to Siachen to make them understand why the jawans needed the snow scooters there.
The bureaucracy should also have a look at Chanakya’s timeless quote on a soldier’s dues (paraphrased here so that the medical needs of soldiers are addressed with empathy)— ‘the day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha, for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be King”.
THE COMPETING VALUES AT STAKE
| Value | Argument for Protecting It | Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Justice | Injured cadets deserve redress because they were harmed in service of the nation. | Legal definitions of "service" may exclude them. |
| Gratitude / National Responsibility | The state must show appreciation and support to those who sacrifice for it. | Public policy often values only full-time, commissioned service. |
| Equality | All persons injured in military context should receive comparable support. | Administrative feasibility and budget constraints may limit universal coverage. |
| Fiscal Prudence | The government must manage taxpayer money responsibly. | Ethically questionable if cost-saving comes at the expense of injured youth. |
| Rule of Law | Policy must follow legal frameworks (e.g. pensions, disability laws). | These frameworks may be outdated or unjust in current context. |
| Compassion | Societies are judged by how they treat their most vulnerable. | Compassion isn't always codified in law or policy. |
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
1. Duty of Care by the State
2. Fairness and Recognition
3. Informed Consent and Risk
4. Equity vs. Uniformity
5. Human Dignity and Disability
CONCLUSION
The ethical imperative is clear: the state must evolve policies to fill this justice gap—through ex-servicemen status, health cover, re-skilling, and dignified compensation. As India aspires to uphold the values of justice, dignity, and national honour, it must extend full institutional support to these cadets—not out of charity, but out of duty.
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”— Mahatma Gandhi.
Spread the Word