By Binny Yadav
For 36 years, Bijender Singh waited. Waited not for charity, but for justice. As a young jawan serving in the extreme cold of Siachen, he developed a severe neurological condition that ended his military career far too soon. But what followed was worse: years of official denial, bureaucratic apathy, and legal battles—all to prove that his suffering was linked to the uniform he once wore with pride.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has finally ordered the Union Government to pay Singh the disability pension he was denied for over three decades. The Court’s words cut through decades of red tape: “A grateful nation cannot deny its warriors their rightful due.”
The ruling doesn’t just vindicate Singh—it may reshape the rights of thousands of armed forces personnel who face similar stonewalling after service-related disabilities.
The Forgotten Soldier
Bijender Singh joined the Indian Army on September 30, 1985, and was posted to the Siachen Glacier in May 1988—arguably one of the world’s harshest military postings. In October 1988, he began experiencing tonic-clonic seizures, later diagnosed as a neurological disorder.
Just 14 months after deployment, Singh was invalided out of service based on a Medical Board’s report that deemed his condition neither attributable to, nor aggravated by, military service. Worse, his disability was assessed at under 20 percent—conveniently below the threshold required for pension benefits.
He would spend decades appealing this verdict—his condition persistent and lifelong, yet consistently dismissed as not service-related.
Systemic Stonewalling
Singh’s repeated representations—to the Army, to medical boards, and to the Armed Forces Tribunal—were brushed aside. Despite clear Supreme Court precedents in similar cases, Singh’s request for 50 percent disability pension was rejected again in 2013, leading to the case finally reaching the apex court.
In Bijender Singh vs Union of India, the Supreme Court came down hard on the government’s position. The judgment reiterated a key principle from Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India (2013): Any disability that surfaces during service is presumed to be service-related, unless proven otherwise with cogent reasoning.
The Court noted that Singh was medically fit at the time of recruitment, and that his condition emerged while stationed in extreme high-altitude conditions. The blanket denial of attribution, without adequate justification, amounted to a failure of both due process and moral obligation.
A Legal Turning Point
This verdict is part of a broader legal pattern where the Supreme Court has consistently corrected institutional neglect towards disabled veterans:
- Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India (2013): Set the benchmark for presuming service attribution unless rebutted with evidence.
- Sukhvinder Singh vs Union of India (2014): Held that disabilities assessed at 20 percent or more must be rounded off to 50 percent for pension.
- Union of India vs Rajbir Singh (2015): Clarified that even “constitutional” or pre-existing conditions can be aggravated by military stress.
Yet despite these rulings, medical boards and military bureaucracy continue to mechanically deny attribution, often without offering a shred of meaningful explanation.
The Human Cost of Apathy
Singh’s 36-year-old struggle exposes a painful truth: legal justice in India is too often a test of stamina, not merit. Most affected veterans lack the legal knowledge, stamina, or financial backing to pursue such long cases. Many give up. Others suffer in silence. Singh fought—and won—not just for himself, but for those who never got their day in Court. “The mere ipse dixit of the Medical Board,” said the Court, “does not discharge the burden of proof.” This verdict places the responsibility squarely where it belongs: on the State, not the soldier.
A Moment To Reform
The Court’s ruling should be a wake-up call for the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces Tribunal system, which must now internalize these legal standards and reform how they assess disability claims.
With an ageing veteran population, and mounting legal backlogs, this ruling should drive the system towards faster, fairer, and more compassionate adjudication of veteran claims.
Beyond The Judgment
Singh will now receive the 50 percent disability element of his pension, along with arrears. But the bigger win is moral—and systemic. His case has laid bare the procedural failures, the inbuilt suspicion, and the bureaucratic culture that too often treats disability as an inconvenience, not a cost of service. It is time to fix that. Because a nation that refuses to honour its wounded soldiers can hardly call itself grateful.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator