Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Supreme Court Awards 50 Lakh Compensation for Army Personnel Wrongly Diagnosed with AIDS

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, has set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision, ruling in favor of an ex-Army personnel, Satyanand Singh, in Civil Appeal No. 1666 of 2015. The Court critically observed, “We have no doubt in our mind that this is a case of wrong diagnosis and false alarm with imperilling consequences for the appellant.”

The civil appeal challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment rejecting Singh’s request for a re-examination of an AIDS diagnosis leading to his dismissal from the Indian Army. The central legal point revolved around the wrongful medical diagnosis and subsequent termination under Rule 13(3) of the Army Rules, 1954, along with the appropriate application of medical and Army guidelines.

Satyanand Singh, enrolled in the Indian Army in 1993, was dismissed in 2001 following a diagnosis of AIDS based on a misdiagnosis of neuro tuberculosis as an AIDS-defining illness. The case raised crucial issues regarding medical negligence, incorrect application of medical guidelines, and the right to fair treatment of HIV-positive individuals in the armed forces.

The Court found significant lapses in the medical diagnosis process and criticized the lack of examination by a neurologist. The judgment highlighted the flawed reliance on outdated guidelines, leading to Singh’s wrongful diagnosis and dismissal. The Court noted the policy shift concerning HIV-positive personnel and emphasized the inclusion of CD4 cell count criteria, which was overlooked in Singh’s case.

The Court also addressed the discrimination and stigma faced by HIV-positive individuals, stressing the need for sensitivity and adherence to scientific standards. The judgment scrutinized the application and interpretation of various guidelines and policies related to medical discharge, highlighting the importance of correct medical procedures and fair treatment.

Decision: The Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 to Singh for wrongful termination, psychological trauma, and financial losses. The Court directed the grant of pension as if Singh had continued his service until retirement, considering allowances/increments for pension computation. The judgment underscored that while financial compensation might not fully make up for the ordeal, it could act as a solace.

Date of Decision: 20th March 2024.

Satyanand Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News