VEER PAL SINGH versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 02-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 579 
VEER PAL SINGH 
v. 
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 
(Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2012) 
JULY 2, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Armed Forces - Pre-mature release/discharge of 
appellant from service for suffering from 'Schizophrenic C 
Reaction' - Disability pension - Entitlement to -
Expert 
opinion - Opinion of Medical Board - Scope of judicial review 
- Whether, on facts, the Medical Board had entirely relied upon 
an inchoate opinion expressed by the Psychiatrist and no 
effort was made to consider the improvement made in the D 
degree of illness after the treatment - Held: Although, the 
Courts and other judicial I quasi-judicial forums are ext~mely 
loath to interfere with the opinion of the experts, they cannot, 
in each and every case, refuse to examine the record of the 
Medical Board - ·In the case at hand, the Invaliding Medical E 
Soard simply endorsed the observation of the Psychiatrist 
that the case of appellant was that of "Schizophrenic Reaction" 
- Conclusion recorded by the Invaliding Medical Board was 
not well founded and required review in the context of the 
observation made by the Psychiatrist herself that with F 
treatment, the appellant had improved - In the peculiar facts, 
tl1e Tribunal should have ordered constitution of Review 
Medical Board for re-examination of the appellant - However, 
the Tribunal did not even bother to look into the contents of 
the certificate issued by the Invalidating Medical Board and G 
mechanically observed that it cannot sit in appeal over the 
opinion of the Medical Board - Respondents directed to refer 
the case of appellant to Review Medical Board for re-
assessing his medical condition and find out whether at the 
579 
H 
580 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
time of discharge from service, he was suffering from a 
disease which made him unfit to continue in service and 
whether he would be entitled to disability pension. 
The appellant was enrolled in the Army (Corps of 
B Signals) in Medical Category "AYE". He was 
subsequently downgraded to Medical Category "CEE" 
(Temporary), and thereafter, on recommendations of the 
Invaliding Medical Board, was discharged from service for 
suffering from 'Schizophrenic Reaction'. 
C 
The claim of appellant for disability pension was 
rejected on the ground that the disease, i.e., 
Schizophrenic Reaction, which caused his discharge was 
not attributable to military service. The appellant filed Writ 
Petition before the High Court which directed the 
D competent authority to decide the appellant's 
representation. The representation filed by the appellant 
having been rejected, he filed another W~it Petition 
praying for directions to the respondents to constitute a 
Review Medical Board to re-evaluate his disease. 
E 
Meanwhile the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 was 
enacted and the second writ petition filed by the 
appellant was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal. 
The Tribunal held against the appellant observing that 
F 
recommendations made by the Medical Board were 
binding and could not be subjected to judicial review, 
and therefore the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1~ Although, the Courts are extremely loath to 
H 
interfere with the opinion of the experts, there is nothing 
like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on 
the basis of such opinion. The opinion of the experts 
deserves respect and not worship and the Courts and 
VEER PAL SINGH v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF 
581 
DEFENCE 
other judicial I quasi- judicial forums entrusted with the A 
task of deciding the disputes relating to premature 
release I discharge from the Army cannot, in each and 
every case, refuse to examine the record of the Medical 
Board for determining whether or not the conclusion 
reached by it is legally sustainable. [Para 11) [597-G-H; 
B 
598-A-B] 
2. In the case at hand, at the time of enrolment in the 
Army, the appellant was subjected to medical examination 
and Recruiting Medical Officer found that he was fit in all C 
respects. The doctor who examined the appellant i.e. the 
Recruiting Medical Officer did not find any disease or 
abnormality in the behaviour of the appellant. When the 
Psychiatrist -
Dr. (Mrs.) Lalitha Rao examined the 
appellant, she noted he was quarrelsome, irritable and 
0 
impulsive but he had improved with the treatment. The 
Invaliding Medical Board simply endorsed the 
obser

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