Medical boards and disability pension mess: Where procedure overrides evidence | Opinion

On February 20, 2019, India's veteran community felt a rare moment of relief. The Ministry of Defence officially announced, through its Twitter handle, the withdrawal of 60 civil appeals filed in the Supreme Court against disabled soldiers' pension claims. This compassionate gesture, explicitly made "keeping in mind the welfare of ex-servicemen and their families," represented long-awaited hope for thousands of veterans who had endured exhausting legal battles to secure their legitimate pensions.

Fast forward nearly six years, and what appeared to be a promising policy shift has devolved into a painful status quo. Recently, this persistent crisis was highlighted again when Trinamool Congress MP Sagarika Ghose raised pointed questions in Parliament, asking why the Defence Ministry’s bureaucracy continues to file unnecessary legal challenges against veterans’ rightful disability pensions. Ghose also spotlighted the serious operational failures plaguing the SPARSH pension portal, causing acute hardship for thousands of ex-servicemen. This parliamentary exchange underlines a grim reality—despite high-level assurances, India's disabled veterans remain entangled in procedural complexities and protracted bureaucratic struggles that severely undermine their dignity and financial security.

Also read: India can become a naval MRO hub: The country's oldest shipyard shows the way

Procedural Rigidity over Medical Evidence

At the heart of this pension crisis lies the bureaucratic functioning of the concerned medical boards—specifically, Release Medical Boards (RMBs) and Re-Survey Medical Boards (RSMBs). While initially designed to ensure fair assessments of disability and service connection, these boards have often become bureaucratic hurdles, using excessively narrow criteria to deny pension claims, frequently overriding robust medical evidence.

This bureaucratic rigidity became particularly evident after the new disability pension guidelines were introduced in September 2023. These rules imposed stringent conditions for disabilities to qualify as "service-connected." Common ailments, such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and mental health issues, are only accepted as service-related if they arise under narrowly specified circumstances, such as postings at high altitudes or active combat zones. This interpretation is divorced from established medical knowledge, which recognises that chronic stress—ubiquitous in military service regardless of geographic location—can significantly contribute to these conditions.

The restrictive practices of these boards have drawn widespread criticism from the ex-servicemen community. Veterans legitimately suffering from ailments directly linked to military stress find themselves repeatedly rejected because their conditions don't neatly fit the bureaucratic definitions, thus forcing them into prolonged litigation battles that severely impact their lives and finances.

Judicial Criticism Ignored by Bureaucracy

The persistent practice by the defence ministry’s bureaucracy of challenging favourable tribunal orders has not gone unnoticed. Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has consistently and explicitly rebuked this babu approach. The landmark judgement in the case of Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (2018) was particularly scathing, describing the Defence Ministry’s persistent litigation approach as "insouciant," "frivolous," and reflective of a "could n't-care-less" attitude. The apex court even imposed a monetary fine on the bureaucracy, highlighting its frustration with the unnecessary litigation culture.

Yet, the bureaucratic red-tape remained largely unmoved by this judicial censure. In January 2025, the Supreme Court again condemned what it termed the “mindless litigation” by military authorities against retired personnel, stressing that procedural technicalities cannot override clear medical evidence. Despite repeated judicial reprimands, these practices persist, raising troubling questions about bureaucratic accountability and systemic reform within the Ministry.

Historical Warning Signs Ignored

This systemic issue is not new. As early as 2008, a parliamentary committee severely criticised the Defence Ministry's bureaucratic handling of stress-related conditions in the armed forces. In its report, the committee expressed strong regret that studies on stress management, suicide, and fratricide within the armed forces were unnecessarily classified as 'secret'. It explicitly recommended transparency, urging such reports to be publicly accessible to facilitate meaningful policy reforms.

However, instead of heeding this clear parliamentary warning, the babudom continued down a path of secrecy, dismissiveness, and denial. It repeatedly downplayed stress-induced ailments by claiming that psychiatric morbidity in the Armed Forces was “less than national averages.” This bureaucratic attitude, described by the committee as "lamentable," effectively blocked recognition of legitimate service-related medical conditions, depriving many deserving veterans of their rightful disability entitlements.

Almost two decades since these parliamentary warnings, conditions have demonstrably worsened rather than improved. Stress-related health conditions among veterans remain routinely dismissed by medical boards, suggesting a deeply entrenched bureaucratic culture resistant to reform and accountability.

Human Consequences of Procedural Rigidity

This bureaucratic insensitivity exacts a devastating human toll. Behind each denied claim lies an individual who dedicated years in service to the nation, often suffering significant physical and psychological wounds. For these veterans, a denied pension claim represents more than red tape. Instead, it symbolises an institutional betrayal, causing emotional trauma and severe financial strain.

Veterans suffering from chronic illnesses like severe hypertension or mental health conditions, exacerbated by prolonged service-related stress, are frequently denied pensions simply because bureaucratic procedure does not recognise their conditions as service-related under rigid criteria. The prolonged litigation processes imposed by the bureaucracy further compound veterans’ suffering, draining them financially and emotionally and leaving families in distress.

Civilian vs Military Disability Evaluations

The striking contrast between military and civilian assessments of disability pensions further highlights the unjust practices veterans endure. Civilian public servants generally benefit from clearer, more medically grounded assessments. In contrast, military medical boards persist with rigid interpretations, stubbornly rejecting medically validated evidence and insisting on arbitrary procedural benchmarks. Veterans thus find themselves in a unique, disadvantageous situation—ironically subjected to higher scrutiny and narrower interpretations despite having undertaken significantly greater physical and psychological risks compared to their civilian counterparts.

Accountability and Institutional Reform

To resolve this bureaucratic impasse, immediate, meaningful reforms are imperative. First, internal accountability must be established within the bureaucracy. Military medical boards must immediately adopt updated, medically accurate assessment criteria aligned with modern medical science, including clearly recognising stress-induced ailments as service-related, irrespective of posting location. Any bureaucratic decision deliberately disregarding established judicial positions and medical consensus must invite clear administrative consequences.

Second, independent oversight involving civilian medical experts should become mandatory. This would ensure fairness, transparency, and impartiality in medical assessments, significantly reducing subjective, arbitrary interpretations. Independent audits of medical board decisions should be conducted regularly, with results made publicly available to maintain transparency.

Third, the practice of routinely appealing favourable tribunal judgements in veterans’ disability pension cases must cease immediately. Military bureaucrats responsible for perpetuating such litigation without valid medical grounds must be held accountable.

Also read: The Maritime Chessboard: India and China's Strategic Dance in the Indian Ocean

SPARSH Portal Reform: Transparency and Human Oversight Required

Finally, reforms must urgently address the systemic failures in the SPARSH portal. What was initially envisioned as a transformative digital solution for pension administration has instead compounded veterans’ problems through persistent glitches, causing severe inconvenience, delayed payments, and emotional distress. An immediate comprehensive audit, complemented by external expert oversight and veterans’ consultation, must be prioritised to rectify these shortcomings.

Moving Beyond Promises

India owes more to its disabled veterans than mere promises and well-intentioned announcements. The bureaucratic structures responsible for pension administration must prioritise dignity, fairness, and genuine medical evidence, abandoning outdated procedural rigidity that has long betrayed the trust of ex-servicemen.

The recent parliamentary assurances by Minister of State for Defence Sanjay Seth underline important governmental acknowledgment of veterans’ contributions and hardships. Translating these assurances into meaningful change requires confronting entrenched bureaucratic resistance and reforming medical board practices. Until procedural rigidity gives way to medically sound, compassionate assessments, trust will continue to erode among veterans.

Disability pensions are neither a privilege nor a charity. They represent the rightful due of those who have faithfully served and sacrificed for India. It is now the responsibility of the military bureaucracy to restore fairness, transparency, and accountability into the system, ensuring that procedural hurdles no longer override medical evidence and that veterans receive the respect and care they have undeniably earned. 

(Major General AK Chaturvedi (Retd) is the acting Chairman of STRIVE India, Think Tank, Lucknow.)