"Matter Of Social Justice": Supreme Court Flags Struggles Of Disabled Army Cadets
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathana and R Mahadevan called the issue "unfortunate" and said that even if they don't get ex-serviceman status, measures should be taken to ensure their rehabilitation.
"If there is group insurance for the cadets, even the department will not be burdened. It will be on the insurer. See, the risk is very high. We want brave people to come into the military. But if they are not given adequate benefits, they will get disheartened," Justice Nagarathna said.
He further asked the Centre and the Armed Forces to see if the cadets can come back and be part of the forces.
"Having regard to their disability. Maybe a desk job, not on the field," he said.
Terming it a matter of "social justice", Justice Nagarathana said, "We need to make sure they are provided for and rehabilitated."
The top court issued notice to the Union of India, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Finance, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, the Chief of Air Force Staff, and the Ministry of Social Justice.
At the outset, the top court asked if there was any scheme of insurance for trainee cadets. The court was informed that there was none as of now. The Supreme Court then sought a reply on whether there could be a reassessment of the injured cadets after their treatment is completed, and thereafter any suitable training could be given to them so that they could be rehabilitated.
Further, the rights that such candidates have under the Disabilities Act could also be examined by the respondents, the court suggested.
In this regard, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti submitted that she would discuss the matter with the concerned respondents and revert. In the meantime, the counsel who have appeared for the cadets can also give their written suggestions to her, the bench said while listing the matter on September 4.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
8 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sambhal temple-mosque row: Court sets August 28 to hear case
A court in Chandausi on Thursday (August 21, 2025) fixed August 28 to hear the ongoing Shahi Jama Masjid-Harihar temple dispute. The matter was listed for hearing before civil judge (senior division) Aditya Singh. Advocate of the Hindu side, Gopal Sharma, told PTI that on Thursday, the opposite side filed an application saying that since this matter was pending in the Supreme Court, the present court did not have the jurisdiction to hear this case. The matter was then deferred to August 28. The Muslim side has challenged the maintainability of the case in the Allahabad High Court, but on May 19, the High Court upheld the trial court's order permitting a court-monitored survey and directed it to proceed with the matter. While talking to reporters, Shahi Jama Masjid's advocate Qasim Jamal confirmed filing the application and a judgment related to the Worship Act. It was directed till the Supreme Court heard the case, all religious matters will not be heard by any other court, he added. "Neither any case can be heard nor any action can be taken, when the order of the Supreme Court is still pending and a stay has been imposed till the next hearing," he said. Mr. Jamal added, "If this hearing takes place then it will be a violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines." The trial court, therefore, said any objection should be filed by August 28. The dispute dates back to November 19 last year, when Hindu petitioners, including advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, filed a suit in the Sambhal district court claiming the mosque was built over a pre-existing temple. A court-ordered survey was conducted on the same day (November 19), followed by another on November 24. The second survey on November 24 led to significant unrest in Sambhal, resulting in the death of four persons and injuries to 29 police personnel. The police booked SP MP Ziaur Rahman Barq and mosque committee head Zafar Ali in relation to the violence besides registering an FIR against 2,750 unidentified persons.
Scroll.in
8 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Muslims in UP's Moradabad told not to name wedding bands after Hindu deities
The police in Uttar Pradesh's Moradabad have ordered Muslim wedding band operators not to name their bands after Hindu deities after a complaint was filed on the chief minister's portal, the Hindustan Times reported on Thursday. A complaint was registered by a lawyer on July 9, claiming that about 15 to 20 Muslim band operators in the district were running their businesses using the names of Hindu deities, the newspaper quoted unidentified police officers as saying. The complainant claimed that the practice hurt religious sentiments. Superintendent of Police (City) Kumar Ranvijay Singh told Amar Ujala that several band operators in the district were summoned on Tuesday and told to remove such names. 'All of them have said that they will remove the names,' he was quoted as saying. The complainant told the Hindustan Times that the wedding band industry in Moradabad was largely dominated by Muslims. 'Yet many of these establishments operate under Hindu names, including those of gods and goddesses,' he said. 'This is an attempt to distort identity,' he alleged. 'The chief minister [Adityanath] himself has called for action against such practices.' The action taken by the police based on his complaint was not discrimination, but 'legal action', he told the newspaper. This came a month after the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments directed eateries along the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage route to display quick response codes with their owners' identities. The matter was challenged in the Supreme Court, where a counsel for the Uttarakhand government reportedly claimed that the real problem was dhabas named 'Shiva Dhaba' or 'Parvati Dhaba' being run by Muslims. On July 22, the court refused to examine the legality of the directives issued by the two state governments. Similar orders were issued by Uttar Pradesh in 2024. The police in the state's Muzaffarnagar had claimed at the time that the decision was taken to ' avoid confusion ' among devotees who will travel on the route.
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Anti-defection law and Supreme Court's order for Telangana speaker: When the custodian refuses to act
Written by Shashank Maheshwari and Anmol Jain 'The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.' These words from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Bill, 1985, capture the spirit of the Tenth Schedule. Yet, four decades on, the anti-defection law is being weakened and bypassed not only by defections and resignations but also by omissions by the Speakers — the constitutional authority responsible for deciding anti-defection petitions. The Supreme Court's ruling in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (2025) exemplifies this challenge. The case came up after three Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs defected to the ruling Congress in 2024. Petitions seeking their disqualification were filed before the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly, who kept them pending, allegedly for political reasons. A single judge bench of the High Court directed the Assembly Secretary to place the petitions before the Speaker and ensure a hearing schedule. Disagreeing, the division bench quashed the order, holding — contrary to the prevailing Indian jurisprudence — that courts cannot fix timelines for the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, significant time had passed. This very fear of delay was foreseen during the parliamentary debates of 1985. Parliament chose to vest decision-making power in the Speaker, not the Courts or the Election Commission, to ensure the swift disposal of petitions. The worry was that judicial procedures would consume time and deny rightful representation to the electorate. Yet, no statutory limits were set on the Speaker's discretion, perhaps because the law's immediate purpose — when it was introduced — was to prevent the elected members of the Congress party from defecting to the opposition, a pattern that gave a blow to Congress in several states. Even so, Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi had cautioned: 'Now, in regard to a dispute regarding a member, the matter will be referred to the Presiding Officer, but no time limit has been fixed. I would request that in the next session, the time limit be fixed within which the Speaker has to announce his decision. If he keeps it pending for three to four months, it should not be allowed.' His words now seem to be prophetic. Across the country, Speakers have used inaction to shield defectors, hollowing out the law itself. In Padi Kaushik Reddy, the SC revisited its precedents. Referring to Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), it reiterated that while the Speaker's procedural role and actions are immune from judicial review under Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution, decisions on disqualification petitions are judicial in nature and subject to review on limited grounds such as mala fides, perversity, or jurisdictional error. Relying on Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors v. Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors (2007), the Court stressed that failure to exercise jurisdiction cannot excuse inaction. In the above-mentioned case, given excessive delay and the impending dissolution of the Assembly, the Court directly decided disqualification without remanding the matter back to the Speaker. Similarly, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Court had imposed a four-week limit for deciding petitions, recognising that delay itself defeats the law. The Court also observed that Speakers should normally conclude matters within three months. Against this backdrop, paragraphs 93 to 95 of the Padi Kaushik judgment are telling. The Court reaffirmed that while it cannot mechanically dictate timelines, indefinite silence renders the Tenth Schedule meaningless. The Speaker is under a constitutional duty to act within a reasonable time. Where this duty is breached, judicial review may not prescribe rigid deadlines but can intervene to ensure that the law's very purpose of curbing defections is not frustrated. The judgment lays bare the core dilemma. The Tenth Schedule vests power in the Speaker on the assumption that constitutional morality will guide him. But as the 1985 debates and repeated judicial interventions reveal, this assumption has not held. The Speaker's inaction, warned against four decades ago by parliamentarians like Dasmunsi, remains the law's Achilles' heel. The Supreme Court has once again underlined the problem, while exercising restraint so as not to encroach upon the legislature's domain. Unless parliament amends the law to fix a clear timeline or shifts adjudication to an independent authority, the anti-defection regime will continue to be hollowed out by seemingly partisan Speakers. The 'evil of political defections' that the framers sought to eradicate thus survives — not because the law is absent, but because its custodian refuses to act. The writers teach law at Jindal Global Law School
