Introduction:
In Sarevesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 163, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of a former Army personnel seeking disability compensation for a medical condition diagnosed as “Stroke Ischemic RT MCA Territory.” The Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), holding that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
The Court examined the scope of Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, along with paragraph 6 of the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002, which specifically excludes compensation for disabilities arising out of intemperate habits such as alcohol, tobacco, or drug use. The medical records in the present case revealed that the appellant was in the habit of smoking approximately ten bidis per day. Relying on established medical principles linking smoking to ischemic stroke, the Court concluded that the condition arose from personal lifestyle factors rather than service-related causes.
The judgment is significant for its reaffirmation of the principle that disability pension under military law requires a clear nexus between service conditions and the ailment. It also clarifies the limits of judicial intervention where medical opinion and statutory regulations explicitly exclude compensation for conditions attributable to personal habits.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, a former member of the Indian Army, was diagnosed with “Stroke Ischemic RT MCA Territory,” a condition involving blockage of blood flow to the right middle cerebral artery in the brain, leading to tissue damage. Following the diagnosis, he sought disability pension under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
Regulation 173 provides that disability pension may be granted to personnel who are invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service. However, the regulation is subject to exclusions, including those outlined in the Guide to Medical Officers, 2002. Paragraph 6 of the Guide clearly stipulates that compensation cannot be awarded for disablement arising from intemperance in the use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or sexually transmitted diseases, as these are matters within the member’s personal control.
The Medical Board assessed the appellant’s condition and opined that the stroke was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The Armed Forces Tribunal affirmed this finding, holding that the medical evidence did not establish any causal connection between service conditions and the stroke. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the AFT’s decision.
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant:
Counsel for the appellant argued that the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in mechanically accepting the Medical Board’s opinion without considering the broader service conditions to which the appellant was exposed during his tenure in the Army. It was submitted that military service inherently involves stress, physical exertion, and unpredictable environmental conditions, all of which could contribute to cardiovascular ailments and strokes.
The appellant contended that the benefit of doubt principle, often applied in military pension cases, should operate in his favour. It was argued that unless the Medical Board’s opinion conclusively ruled out service-related aggravation, the disability should be presumed attributable to service.
Further reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2025), where the Court had interfered with the Medical Board’s opinion and granted relief to a soldier serving in Siachen Glacier, a high-altitude and extremely harsh posting. In that case, despite the Medical Board assessing the disability at 15–19% and stating it was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, the Supreme Court had taken a more liberal approach.
The appellant argued that similar reasoning should apply in the present case. It was submitted that the mere fact of smoking ten bidis per day should not automatically disentitle him from disability pension. The counsel contended that smoking is not uncommon among service personnel and cannot, by itself, negate the possibility of service-related aggravation.
Additionally, it was argued that ischemic stroke can result from multiple factors, including stress and hypertension, which could be service-related. Therefore, the Medical Board’s conclusion attributing the condition solely to smoking habits was, according to the appellant, simplistic and incomplete.
The appellant sought setting aside of the AFT’s order and grant of disability pension with consequential benefits.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
The Union of India and its officers, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and other counsel, supported the findings of the Medical Board and the Armed Forces Tribunal.
It was submitted that Regulation 173 read with paragraph 6 of the Guide to Medical Officers clearly excludes compensation for disabilities arising from intemperance in the use of tobacco. The respondents emphasized that the appellant’s medical records explicitly recorded his habit of smoking ten bidis per day.
The respondents relied on established medical literature indicating that ischemic stroke occurs when a blood clot or fatty plaque blocks an artery leading to the brain, thereby restricting oxygen supply. Smoking is a well-recognized risk factor for such conditions. Other risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, and atrial fibrillation.
It was contended that the Medical Board’s opinion was based on scientific assessment and should not be lightly interfered with. The Tribunal had correctly noted that there was no evidence to show that the appellant’s service conditions either caused or aggravated the stroke.
Distinguishing the Bijender Singh case, the respondents argued that it involved entirely different factual circumstances. In that case, the soldier was posted at Siachen Glacier, a high-altitude area with extreme climatic conditions, which could plausibly aggravate medical conditions. In contrast, the present case did not involve any such extraordinary service conditions.
Therefore, the respondents urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
The Supreme Court’s Judgment:
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale carefully examined the statutory framework, medical evidence, and precedents cited.
Interpretation of Regulation 173 and Medical Guidelines:
The Court reiterated that Regulation 173 permits disability pension only when the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service. The regulation cannot be read in isolation; it must be interpreted alongside the Guide to Medical Officers.
Paragraph 6 of the Guide explicitly states that compensation cannot be awarded for disablement arising from intemperance in the use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or sexually transmitted diseases, as these are within the individual’s control.
The Court observed that this provision leaves little room for ambiguity. If the disability arises from personal habits such as excessive tobacco consumption, compensation is not warranted.
Medical Findings and Causation:
The Bench noted that the medical records clearly indicated the appellant’s habit of smoking ten bidis per day. Referring to well-established principles of medical science, the Court observed that ischemic stroke occurs due to blockage of blood flow to the brain. Smoking is widely recognized as a significant risk factor for such blockage.
The Court stated:
“The appellant was in the habit of smoking bidis that too ten bidis per day and it is trite position of medical law that an ischemic stroke occurs when a blood clot or fatty plaque (atherosclerosis) blocks an artery leading to brain, restricting oxygen which reduces blood flow and causing brain tissue damage and the medical opinion categorizing risk factors includes high blood pressure (hypertension), smoking, diabetes, high cholesterol, i.e., dyslipidemia, obesity and atrial fibrillation.”
The Court found no evidence suggesting that military service conditions either caused or aggravated the disease. Therefore, the requirement of nexus between service and disability was not satisfied.
Distinguishing Precedent:
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2025). It held that the earlier decision was fact-specific and turned on the unique circumstances of service at Siachen Glacier.
In contrast, the present case involved no such extraordinary service conditions. Hence, the precedent was inapplicable.
Conclusion of the Court:
Having found no infirmity in the Armed Forces Tribunal’s reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court affirmed that disability compensation cannot be granted for conditions arising from personal lifestyle choices such as smoking.
Legal Significance:
This judgment reinforces several key principles:
Strict Nexus Requirement: Disability pension requires clear evidence that the ailment is attributable to or aggravated by service.
Exclusion for Intemperance: Personal habits like smoking can disentitle a claimant under the Pension Regulations.
Limited Scope of Judicial Review: Courts will not lightly interfere with Medical Board findings unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
Fact-Specific Precedents: Decisions granting relief in extreme service conditions cannot be universally applied.
The ruling underscores that while courts adopt a liberal approach in deserving cases, statutory exclusions cannot be ignored.