Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Awards ₹1.54 Crores to HIV-Positive Air Force Officer for Medical Negligence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court of India has awarded ₹1.54 crores in compensation to a former Indian Air Force (IAF) officer who contracted HIV due to medical negligence. The judgment, delivered on September 26, 2023, emphasizes the importance of upholding the dignity and honour of armed forces personnel and calls for effective implementation of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017.

The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, underscored the duty of state functionaries, including the armed forces, to maintain the highest standards of safety, well-being, and medical fitness for personnel. The court expressed concern over the lack of dignity, honour, and compassion displayed in the appellant's treatment, stating that no amount of monetary compensation can fully restore the harm caused by such behaviour.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, while delivering the judgment, remarked, "People sign up to join the armed forces with considerable enthusiasm and a sense of patriotic duty... Any flagging from these standards...entails a loss of confidence in the personnel, undermines their morale, and injects a sense of bitterness and despair."

The appellant, an HIV-positive former IAF officer, had sought compensation for medical negligence that led to his condition. The court found the respondents, including the IAF and the Indian Army, vicariously liable for the negligence and jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Justice Dipankar Datta explained, "The appellant is entitled to compensation, calculated at ₹1,54,73,000/- towards compensation on account of medical negligence of the respondents, who are held liable for the injury suffered by the appellant."

Furthermore, the judgment issued comprehensive directions to the Central and State Governments for the effective implementation of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017. These directions include providing diagnostic facilities, treatment, welfare schemes, property protection, information and education programs, and safe working environments for HIV-positive individuals.

The court emphasized the need for a compassionate and timely response to the medical needs of the appellant, who requires ongoing care due to his HIV-positive condition. It directed the respondents to extend full cooperation to the appellant for his future medical treatment and bimonthly medical check-ups.

The Supreme Court also acknowledged the valuable assistance provided by the amicus, Ms. Meenakshi Arora (Senior Advocate), and the persistence of the appellant in seeking justice. It awarded costs of ₹5,00,000/- to the appellant and an honorarium of ₹50,000/- to the amicus, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, who compiled the paper-book.

This landmark judgment not only recognizes the rights and dignity of individuals living with HIV but also sends a powerful message about the responsibilities of state functionaries, especially in the context of the armed forces, to uphold the welfare and honor of their personnel.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2023

CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) vs COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS.     

Latest Legal News