SATYANAND SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 20-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 865 : 2024 INSC 236
Satyanand Singh 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1666 of 2015)
20 March 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna & Dipankar Datta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The issue for consideration before this Hon’ble Court was a 
challenge to a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which 
rejected the Appellant’s prayer for a reference of his diagnosis of 
AIDS, to a fresh Medical Board.
The matter arose out of the Appellant’s discharge from service 
from the Indian Army under Rule 13(3), Item III (iii) of the Army 
Rules, 1954 on the ground that he was suffering from AIDS. The 
Appellant approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging 
the Order of discharge from service. A Single Judge of the High 
Court allowed the Appellant’s writ petition, which was reversed 
by the Division Bench. On a challenge made to the Supreme 
Court, the Appellant was permitted to withdraw his appeal, and 
avail statutory remedies. Accordingly, the Appellant approached 
the Armed Forces Tribunal, which passed the Impugned Order.
Headnotes
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 
866
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 – Deep-
rooted 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]
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
867
Satyanand Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Constitution of India – Compensatory jurisprudence – Just 
compensation:
Held: The Constitution, through its Preamble, guarantees ‘Justice’ 
to all its 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.