Supreme Court Rejects Defence Ministry, Upholds War Injury Pension for Kargil Illness
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on 28 October 2026 dismissed the Union of India's appeal and upheld the grant of War Injury Pension to a former Army soldier whose Rheumatoid Arthritis developed during his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak, rejecting the Ministry of Defence's argument that the operation was not covered by the 2001 policy.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that once an operation is specially notified, Category E(i) of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001 applies unless the policy or the notification itself says otherwise. The Court found nothing to exclude Operation Rakshak except the oral statement of the Additional Solicitor General, and directed the Government to state in clear terms, in every future notification, whether the pensionary benefits will apply.
Case at a Glance
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Narender Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 27220 of 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 1166
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2026
Challenged: Concurrent findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal (OA No. 221 of 2019, order dated 8 April 2024) and the High Court (CWP No. 23117 of 2025, order dated 11 August 2025) granting War Injury Pension
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; War Injury Pension upheld
The Question Behind the Headline
Can a soldier who falls ill while posted at Kargil claim War Injury Pension, and not just ordinary Disability Pension, when the Ministry of Defence says Operation Rakshak is not a specially notified operation? The Supreme Court answered yes. The Ministry's position rested on an oral submission, and the Court held that a policy means what it says, not what the policymaker later imagines it to mean.
The Union had also warned that this reading would entitle every soldier posted in Jammu and Kashmir under Operation Rakshak to War Injury Pension. The Bench did not accept that as a reason to narrow the policy, and instead placed the burden on the Government to draft its notifications clearly.
Background of the Dispute
A Soldier at Kargil
The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 30 December 1996. While posted at Kargil from 13 July 2003 to 6 July 2005, he was diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis (Seropositive). He was later also diagnosed with PIVD L4/5, L5/S1 and PIVD C5/C6 (Operated) while posted in West Bengal.
Discharge and Disability Pension
He applied for discharge and was released on 31 January 2013. The Release Medical Board accepted all three disabilities as aggravated by military service at 70 percent for life, rounded off to 75 percent for life. Having served more than 16 years, he was granted Disability Pension consisting of a Service Element and a Disability Element.
The Claim for War Injury Pension
About six years after discharge, he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking War Injury Pension under Part II, Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001, on the ground that his Rheumatoid Arthritis was a direct consequence of his Kargil posting. The Ministry opposed the claim, arguing that his disability was not covered by Category E(i). It also argued that, even on rounding off, he could claim 75 percent only from 1 January 2016.
What the Tribunal and the High Court Held
The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed the application on 8 April 2024, holding that the disease originated in January 2005 during service at Kargil with 14 Rajputana Rifles, that the entire Jammu and Kashmir area is an operational area, and that the soldier had made out a clear case under Category E(i).
The High Court dismissed the Ministry's challenge on 11 August 2025, relying on the Release Medical Board's opinion that the disease originated during the Kargil posting between 2003 and 2005.
What the Supreme Court Held
Category E Stands Alone
The Court explained that Part II of the Policy Letter has five categories, A to E, and that Category E covers death or disability arising from nine circumstances in the nature of actual war or a war-like situation, including enemy action in international war, border skirmishes, mine operations and acts of violence by extremists. Sub-category E(i) covers operations specially notified by the Government from time to time. The Bench noted that these provisions are now also part of the Pension Regulations for Army, 2008, but proceeded on the Policy Letter because both sides relied on it.
Sub-Category E(i) Is an Enabling Provision
The Court held that sub-categories (a) to (h) describe egregious situations akin to war or extreme violence and that the list may not be exhaustive. Sub-category E(i) was meant to give flexibility to the defence administration, because not every war-like situation fits within the eight listed heads.
Going by the plain language of the Policy, once a notification is issued for a specific operation, Category E(i) is invoked, unless there is something indicative either in the Policy or in the notification so issued.
No Basis to Exclude Operation Rakshak
The Ministry argued that Category E(i) covers only specially notified operations such as Operation Sindoor or Operation Snow Leopard, and not ongoing operations like Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir or Operation Rhino in Assam. It also argued that the reading would render other clauses of Category E otiose. The Court found that, apart from the oral statement of the Additional Solicitor General, there was no interpretative aid to exclude Operation Rakshak from Category E(i).
On Army Order 01 of 2003, which deals with the classification of physical and battle casualties, the Court held that it was unnecessary to rely on it because it causes more confusion than it clarifies. Where the Policy Letter does not distinguish between notifications issued under Category E(i), the benefit cannot be denied.
The Burden Lies on the Policymaker
The Court accepted that the power to prescribe the scope of a policy lies wholly with the Defence Administration, and that courts will normally not interfere. But it set a clear limit on that deference.
If an issue relating to applicability of a policy arises for consideration, the primary burden lies on the policymaker to demonstrate the circumstances in which the benefit would accrue or not accrue.
What a policy says, it is, and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker.
The Bench added that when the language of a policy is unrestrictive, it is not the burden of the Court to limit its application, particularly when the policy relates to the grant of pensionary benefits, where a liberal interpretation is compelling.
Directions and Observations to the Government
Notifications Must State Whether Benefits Apply
The Court held that while notifying operations under Category E(i), the Government must declare in clear terms whether the pensionary benefits under Para 4.1, Category E(i) of the Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001 will apply to that notification.
A Call for Clear Subordinate Legislation
The Bench also expressed concern about the repeated uncertainty over which rules, regulations, instructions and policies of the Ministry of Defence apply, and said it is high time the Ministry issued comprehensive and clearly identifiable subordinate legislation governing the services, for fairness in action and good governance.
What This Means Going Forward
Service personnel with disabilities linked to postings in specially notified operations have a stronger basis to claim War Injury Pension, and not only Disability Pension.
The Ministry of Defence cannot rely on an unwritten understanding that a notified operation is excluded from Category E(i).
Future notifications of operations will have to say expressly whether Para 4.1 pensionary benefits apply.
Pending and future claims will turn on the text of the policy and of the notification, with the burden on the Government to justify any exclusion.
Learn Drafting That Holds Up in Court With Into Legal World
This judgment shows how a single unclear clause can decide a pension. Learn to draft precise policies, notifications and agreements with the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course from Into Legal World, and follow our daily judgment updates on the Into Legal World WhatsApp Channel.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in Union of India v. Narender Kumar?
The Court dismissed the Union's appeal and upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal and High Court orders granting War Injury Pension to a soldier whose Rheumatoid Arthritis arose during his posting at Kargil under Operation Rakshak.
What is Category E(i) of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated 31 January 2001?
It is a sub-category of Category E that covers death or disability arising from operations specially notified by the Government from time to time, and it carries War Injury Pension benefits.
Why did the Ministry of Defence say the claim failed?
The Ministry argued that Operation Rakshak is an ongoing operation and not a specially notified operation under Category E(i), and that accepting the claim would make every soldier posted in Jammu and Kashmir eligible for War Injury Pension.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the Ministry's argument?
The Court found no interpretative aid in the Policy or in any notification to exclude Operation Rakshak, other than the oral statement of the Additional Solicitor General, and held that a policy must be read as written, with the burden on the policymaker to show when the benefit does not apply.
What must the Government do in future notifications?
When notifying an operation under Category E(i), the Government must state clearly whether the pensionary benefits under Para 4.1 of the Policy Letter will apply to that operation.
Keywords
War Injury Pension, Category E(i), Operation Rakshak, Kargil, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Armed Forces Tribunal, Ministry of Defence Policy Letter 31 January 2001, Pension Regulations for Army 2008, 2026 INSC 1166, Union of India v. Narender Kumar, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Alok Aradhe.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Narender Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 27220 of 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 1166
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Comments