MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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