Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, in In Re: Cadets Disabled in Military Training Struggle, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 771, has taken a significant step towards safeguarding the rights and future of cadets who suffer disabilities during military training and are subsequently discharged from service. The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan in a suo motu proceeding initiated to address the challenges faced by such “out-boarded” cadets. The Court recognized that these individuals, despite dedicating themselves to military training and sustaining disabilities during that process, often face considerable hardship in securing employment and rehabilitation after being invalidated from service.
The proceedings centered on the plight of out-boarded cadets—individuals who are discharged from military training because they sustained disabilities during the course of training and are unable to continue in service. Although these cadets never formally enter active military service, their disability is directly connected with their participation in the nation’s defence training system. Many of them face uncertainty regarding employment, rehabilitation, and financial security after being discharged, particularly because they do not neatly fall within existing legal definitions applicable to ex-servicemen.
The Court examined the issue in the backdrop of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), particularly Section 34, which mandates that at least four percent of vacancies in government establishments be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. The central question before the Court was whether out-boarded cadets suffering from benchmark disabilities should be entitled to reservation benefits under the RPwD Act and whether the States and Union Territories should also extend to them the benefits ordinarily available to ex-military personnel for public employment.
The case also highlighted another significant concern. While the RPwD Act grants statutory protection only to persons with benchmark disabilities of forty percent or more, several cadets are discharged from military training even though their disabilities fall below this threshold. Such individuals remain medically unfit to continue military training but are simultaneously excluded from the statutory reservation framework. The Supreme Court therefore considered whether a separate welfare mechanism should be evolved to address this gap.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Smt. Rekha Palli assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae, while Additional Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati represented the Union of India. The matter reflects the Court’s continuing commitment to ensuring that constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and social justice extend to individuals who suffer disabilities while preparing to serve the nation.
Arguments of the Parties:
The proceedings before the Supreme Court were not adversarial in the conventional sense, as the matter arose through the Court’s suo motu jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the submissions made by the Amicus Curiae and the Union Government focused upon identifying an appropriate legal and policy framework for protecting the interests of out-boarded cadets.
Assisting the Court, Senior Advocate Rekha Palli highlighted the unique position occupied by cadets discharged during military training due to disabilities sustained while preparing for service. It was submitted that these individuals voluntarily entered military training with the objective of serving the nation. However, circumstances beyond their control prevented them from completing the training after they suffered injuries or disabilities connected with that training.
It was argued that such cadets should not be left without meaningful rehabilitation merely because they were discharged before formal commissioning or enrolment into active service. Although they may not satisfy the existing administrative definition of “ex-servicemen” framed by the Department of Personnel and Training, the nature of their disability and the circumstances in which it was incurred justified according them special consideration.
The Amicus further emphasized that where an out-boarded cadet suffers from a benchmark disability of forty percent or more, such a person squarely falls within the protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Consequently, there was no legal justification for denying them reservation benefits under Section 34 merely because their disability arose during military training rather than after formal induction into military service.
It was also brought to the Court’s attention that many States extend reservation benefits to ex-servicemen in public employment. Extending similar treatment to out-boarded cadets would significantly improve their employment prospects and ensure that they are not unfairly disadvantaged due to technical definitions that fail to recognise their contribution and sacrifice.
Another important concern raised during the proceedings related to cadets whose disabilities are assessed below forty percent. Such individuals may nevertheless be medically unfit to continue military training and consequently lose their opportunity to pursue a military career. However, because they do not satisfy the statutory benchmark disability requirement under the RPwD Act, they remain ineligible for reservation benefits despite suffering permanent disadvantages arising from their disability.
The Amicus therefore urged the Court to encourage the Union Government to formulate a separate rehabilitation scheme addressing the needs of these cadets so that they are not left entirely outside the existing welfare framework.
On behalf of the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati assisted the Court during the hearing. While the detailed submissions of the Union have not been recorded in the order, the Court sought instructions from the Central Government regarding the possibility of formulating an appropriate welfare scheme for cadets whose disabilities fall below the benchmark threshold prescribed under the Disabilities Act.
The proceedings therefore reflected a shared concern regarding the need to strengthen rehabilitation measures for all out-boarded cadets while ensuring that statutory benefits available under the Disabilities Act are effectively extended to those who qualify under its provisions.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered a socially significant order aimed at ensuring that cadets discharged from military training due to disabilities are not deprived of meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation and public employment. The Court interpreted the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in a manner that advances its beneficial purpose while simultaneously encouraging broader policy reforms at both the State and Central Government levels.
The Court first considered the entitlement of out-boarded cadets suffering from benchmark disabilities under Section 34 of the RPwD Act. Section 34 mandates that every appropriate government reserve not less than four percent of vacancies in government establishments for persons with benchmark disabilities. The Bench observed that out-boarded cadets who suffer disabilities amounting to forty percent or more should not be denied the benefit of this statutory reservation merely because they were discharged during military training.
Accordingly, the Court held that such cadets are entitled to apply for employment under the reservation available for persons with benchmark disabilities. In doing so, the Court recognised that the Disabilities Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation intended to promote equality of opportunity, inclusion, and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. Its provisions therefore deserve a liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with constitutional values of equality and dignity.
The Court went a step further by directing all States and Union Territories to consider granting reservation to these out-boarded cadets within the quota reserved for Ex-Military Personnel (Ex-MP). The Bench observed that extending this benefit would substantially improve their employment prospects within State services and recognise the sacrifices they made while undergoing military training.
Significantly, the Court clarified that this consideration should be undertaken independently of the definition of “Ex-Servicemen” presently adopted by the Department of Personnel and Training. The existing administrative definition could not become an obstacle in extending appropriate welfare measures to individuals whose disabilities arose during military training while preparing to serve the nation.
To facilitate implementation, the Court directed the Registry to transmit copies of its order to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories. The Court expected the respective governments to consider implementation of the directions while exercising their powers under Section 34 of the RPwD Act.
The Bench emphasised that the purpose behind this direction was not merely to confer another category of reservation but to acknowledge the peculiar position of out-boarded cadets. Although they may not have formally entered active military service, they nevertheless suffered disabilities in the course of preparing themselves for national defence. Their contribution and sacrifice therefore warranted meaningful rehabilitation measures.
The Court thereafter addressed the concerns of cadets whose disabilities fall below the benchmark disability threshold prescribed by the Disabilities Act. It acknowledged that while these individuals may be medically invalidated from continuing military training, they remain outside the statutory reservation framework because Section 34 applies only to persons having benchmark disabilities of forty percent or more.
Recognising this legislative gap, the Bench observed that such cadets should not be left without any welfare protection merely because their disability percentage falls marginally below the statutory threshold. Consequently, the Court requested the Union Government to examine the feasibility of framing a suitable welfare scheme specifically designed for these out-boarded cadets.
The Court directed the learned Additional Solicitor General to obtain instructions from the Union Government regarding preparation of such a scheme. The proposed framework may provide appropriate rehabilitation measures for cadets who, although excluded from the Disabilities Act, nevertheless lose their military careers owing to disabilities sustained during training.
This part of the order reflects the Court’s broader constitutional vision. Rather than confining itself strictly to statutory interpretation, the Bench recognised that effective rehabilitation often requires policy intervention beyond the express provisions of existing legislation. The Court therefore sought to encourage the executive to fill this welfare gap through an appropriate administrative scheme.
The Supreme Court also clarified an important procedural issue arising from the pendency of the suo motu proceedings. It observed that the existence of the present proceedings would not prevent individual out-boarded cadets from pursuing independent writ petitions before the respective High Courts seeking relief based upon their individual facts.
The Court further noted that certain writ petitions may have been disposed of or deferred solely because of the pendency of the suo motu proceedings before the Supreme Court. To avoid any prejudice, liberty was granted to such petitioners to approach the respective High Courts seeking revival of their earlier petitions.
This clarification preserves the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 while ensuring that individual grievances continue to receive judicial consideration independent of the broader policy issues pending before the Supreme Court.
The Court listed the matter for further consideration on 8 September 2026, particularly to monitor the response of the Union Government regarding the proposed welfare scheme for cadets with disabilities below the benchmark threshold.
The order represents a significant development in disability rights jurisprudence and military welfare policy. It reinforces that beneficial legislation such as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act must be interpreted in a manner that promotes inclusion rather than exclusion. The decision also reflects the constitutional commitment to substantive equality by recognising that persons who suffer disabilities while preparing to serve the nation deserve meaningful rehabilitation and equal opportunities.
Perhaps the most enduring significance of the judgment lies in its humane recognition that public service begins not only with formal appointment but also with the willingness to dedicate oneself to national defence. By extending reservation benefits and encouraging broader rehabilitation measures, the Supreme Court has sought to ensure that cadets whose military aspirations are cut short by disability are not left without dignity, support, or opportunities to rebuild their lives.