War Injury Pension Admissible For Disabilities In Specially Notified Operations Like 'Operation Rakshak' Absent Express Policy Exclusion: Supreme Court

"While interpreting the plain language of the policy, Courts will simply declare, What a policy says, it is and not what is in the imagination of the policymaker," Observing that courts must declare what a policy plainly states rather than what lies in the imagination of the policymaker, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe on October 28, 2026, held that military personnel suffering disabilities during specially notified operations such as 'Operation Rakshak' are entitled to War Injury Pension under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated January 31, 2001, in the absence of any explicit policy exclusion.

The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army in 1996 and was diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis (Seropositive) while posted at Kargil between 2003 and 2005 under Operation Rakshak. Discharged from service in 2013 with a 70% composite disability aggravated by military service, he was initially granted normal disability pension comprising service and disability elements. He subsequently approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking War Injury Pension under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated January 31, 2001, which the Tribunal granted and the High Court affirmed.

Whether an army personnel who developed a disabling condition while deployed in Kargil under Operation Rakshak is entitled to War Injury Pension under Category E(i), Para 4.1 of the Ministry of Defence Policy Letter dated January 31, 2001?

Whether ongoing military operations such as Operation Rakshak can be unilaterally excluded by the defence administration from the scope of specially notified operations without an express statutory or policy stipulation?

Supreme Court expresses concern over persistent ambiguity in defence regulations

Examining the regulatory framework, the bench expressed deep concern over the recurring ambiguity surrounding applicable rules, regulations, and instructions governing defence personnel. The court underscored the immediate necessity for the Union Government to enact comprehensive subordinate legislation to ensure fairness and administrative good governance.

The court noted that Para 4.1 of Part II of the MoD Policy Letter dated January 31, 2001, which is also reflected in Regulation 82 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, categorizes death and disability into distinct classes. While Categories A through D govern casualties arising from natural causes, ordinary service conditions, duty-related accidents, and terrorist violence, Category E uniquely caters to war-like situations and operational exigencies.

Egregious operational circumstances distinguish Category E from ordinary disability cases

The bench observed that sub-categories (a) to (h) of Category E deal with explicit war-like circumstances including enemy action, international peacekeeping, border skirmishes, mine-clearing, and extremist encounters. These clauses address egregious situations where personnel are confronted with severe life-threatening conditions.

The court explained that sub-category E(i), covering operations specially notified by the Government from time to time, is an enabling mechanism crafted to afford operational flexibility to the defence administration. Because war-like scenarios cannot be comprehensively circumscribed within fixed scenarios, the executive retains the power to specially notify operations for operational goals.

Plain language of beneficial executive policies cannot be restricted by oral assertions

Rejecting the Union of India's contention that ongoing missions like Operation Rakshak or Operation Rhino do not fall under Category E(i), the court ruled that once an operation is notified by the Government, the beneficial coverage of Category E(i) immediately attaches. The court held that aside from oral submissions, the MoD failed to produce any policy clause or notification explicitly excluding Operation Rakshak.

The bench held that when a policy's text is unrestrictive, the judiciary cannot undertake an interpretive exercise to curtail benefits, especially in matters of pensionary welfare. It stressed that if the policymaker interprets its own policy contrary to plain language or in a manner that becomes arbitrary, courts will disregard such an interpretation.

Army Orders on battle casualties cannot dilute clear pension policy directives

The bench firmly rejected the Union's reliance on Army Order 01 of 2003 to argue that battle casualty reports are barred for ongoing operations. The court found that referring to internal classification orders only engendered confusion rather than legal clarity, particularly when the MoD Policy Letter dated January 31, 2001 contains no exclusionary language.

The court clarified that while the defence administration possesses full authority to prescribe conditions of entitlement, it carries the primary burden to articulate clear boundaries. In the absence of an express declaration carving out exclusions, liberal interpretation must favor the disabled personnel.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal preferred by the Union of India and upheld the concurrent judgments of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the High Court granting War Injury Pension. The court further directed that while notifying operations under Category E(i) in the future, the Government must declare in clear terms whether the pensionary benefits under the MoD Policy Letter shall apply.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2026