NDLI: Satyanand Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Discharge from service
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (prevention and Control) Act, 2017 (16 of 2017) Army Regulations (0 of 1987) Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (55 of 2007) Guidelines for Management and Prevention of Hiv/aids Infection in The Armed Forces (0 of 2003) Constitution of India, Army Rules (0 of 1954) Guidelines for Prevention and Control of Hiv Infections in The Armed Forces (0 of 1992)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law – Armed Forces – Discharge from service on the ground of the Appellant suffering from AIDS – Application of the Appellant for a reference to a fresh Medical Board rejected by Armed Forces Tribunal – Challenge to: Held: The Armed Forces Tribunal referred to extensive medical literature regarding hazards of HIV – However, the Armed Forces Tribunal failed to observe that the Appellant was not diagnosed with any such symptoms – Nothing was brought on record to indicate that the Appellant was unfit to continue in service – This is a case of wrong diagnosis and false alarm with imperilling consequences for the Appellant – The contention of the Union of India that the doctors in 2001 [relevant time of the medical test] used their best professional judgment to conclude that the Appellant was HIV+ve was rejected on the ground that there were no test results to justify the diagnosis that the Appellant was suffering from AIDS. [Paras 6 and 7] Service Law – Armed Forces – Extreme caution and care to ensure correct diagnosis required where Officer serving in the army is prematurely discharged from service:Held: The Appellant was diagnosed with neuro-tuberculosis, without examination by a neurologist, whose opinion was elementary – The Appellant, while serving in the army, was prematurely discharged; thus, extreme caution and care in ensuring correct diagnoses was required – The Union of India tried to cover up the wrong diagnosis, in spite of the test reports of the Appellant, and the Guidelines for Management and Prevention of HIV/AIDS Infection in the Armed Forces, 2003 [which prescribed that for condition for invalidment of an officer on the ground of suffering from AIDS as a CD4 Cell Count below 200 cells/mm3] – The Medical Board arbitrarily rejected the Appellant’s prayer for a Review Medical Board on flimsy grounds. [Para 8] Service Law – Armed Forces – Discharge from service – Psychological trauma of displacement from service: Held: The severance of the employer-employee relationship results not only in the employee losing his livelihood, but also affects those who depend on him for their survival – The Appellant, who was trained to live a disciplined life since the tender age of 19, was unnecessarily, and without cogent reason thrust into civilian life with little warning or preparation – Such displacement also causes psychological trauma. [Para 12] Service Law – Armed Forces – Denial of disability status on the ground of AIDS being a self-inflicted disease is arbitrary and unreasonable – Systemic discriminatory practice – Deeprooted bias against individuals diagnosed as HIV+ve:Held: The Court expressed its reservation with respect to a Policy of the Army which determined AIDS as self-inflicted, and prescribed a procedure for HIV+ve service personnel to be brought before the Release Medical Board, on the ground that it reflected a systemic discriminatory practice – Reliance placed on the Judgment in CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan v. Commanding Officer [2023] 14 S.C.R. 601 : 2023 INSC 857 to hold that AIDS is not always a self-inflicted disease. [Paras 14 to 17]Constitution of India – Compensatory jurisprudence – Just compensation: Held: The Constitution, through its Preamble, guarantees ‘Justice’ to all its peopConstitution of India – Compensatory jurisprudence – Just compensation:Held: The Constitution, through its Preamble, guarantees ‘Justice’ to all its people, in the deliverance of which, Courts have developed a nuanced compensatory jurisprudence – Reliance was placed on the Judgments in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [1996] Supp. (10) SCR 284 : 1996 INSC 1508 : (1997) 1 SCC 416; P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [1980] 2 SCR. 873 : 1980 INSC 16 : (1980) 3 SCC 141; and the judgment in K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2012] 11 SCR 414 : 2012 INSC 490: (2012) 12 SCC 274, wherein it was held that, while determining the quantum of compensation, the adjudicating authority has to keep in view the sufferings of the injured person, which would include his ability to lead a full life – Having considered the plight of the Appellant and the social stigma attached to persons who are diagnosed as HIV+ve patients, coupled with the position that the Appellant’s reinstatement in service is not an available option, the Court awarded additional monetary compensation to him. [Paras 18 to 21 and 23] Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 – Stigma and discrimination of HIV+ve diagnosis:Held: The stigma and discrimination which accompanies an HIV+ve diagnosis is still an illness which afflicts the minds of society today – The discriminatory sentiment of deeming persons who are HIV+ve to be unfit for employment is evident from the way in which the Appellant was treated by various authorities – The Court awarded the Appellant a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50 Lacs towards compensation – In addition, the Appellant was held to be entitled to pension, as if he had continued in service – The compensation can, in no way, compensate for the ordeal faced by the Appellant, but it may act as a balm to soothe the mind and steady the future. [Paras 25, 26 and 28]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 236
Petitioner	Satyanand Singh
Respondent	Union Of India & Ors.
SCR	[2024] 3 S.C.R. 865
Judgement Date	2024-03-20
Case Number	1666

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Satyanand Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh

Narain Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Sep. Satgur Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh

State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Sahoo

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jujhar Singh

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Keshar Singh

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh

Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Satyanand Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Satyanand Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Sukhwinder Singh

Narain Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Sep. Satgur Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh

State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Sahoo

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jujhar Singh

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Keshar Singh

Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh

Ranjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Satyanand Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.