Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court

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.

Similar News