Right to equality applies to those left with 'no choice': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has stressed that the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution would also apply to a man who has "no choice" or "no meaningful choice".

It said the fundamental right cannot be denied to those who had no option but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai emphasised on the legal principle while allowing a plea by an army personnel, Pani Ram, who was denied disability pension on the basis of a document signed by him at the time of re-employment in Territorial Army (TA). The petitioner has joined TA after serving 25 years in Infantry of Regular Army. After 10 days of leave, when he was coming back to join duty, he met with an accident on April 24, 2009, resulting into amputation of his right leg.

Read | Plea in SC seeks uniform judicial code across India

The court rejected the plea by the Centre that the petitioner had signed the document, saying he would not be entitled for enhanced pension.

"Can it be said that the mighty Union of India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for the country and retired from regular army, seeking re-employment in the Territorial Army, have an equal bargaining power," the bench asked.

Going through the rules, the court said an individual who is invalided out of service on account of disability, which is attributable or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed 20% or more, would be entitled to disability pension.

"When the appellant is enrolled as a member of ETF (Ecological Task Force) which is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), we see no reason as to why the appellant was denied the disability pension. Specifically so, when the Medical Board and COI have found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to the Military Service and it was not due to his own negligence," the court said.

Watch latest videos by DH here: