The Supreme Court on Monday took an empathetic (yet sharp) look at a long-neglected issue—the struggles of military cadets who incur disabilities during training and thereafter fall through the cracks of welfare, insurance, and statutory protection—and questioned the Centre as to why there was no insurance cover for such cadets during their rigorous training.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan issued a notice to multiple arms of the Union government, directing them to respond on measures to alleviate the hardships of such cadets, who neither qualify as ex-servicemen, nor receive meaningful rehabilitation.
The suo motu case was triggered by a newspaper report flagging the issue of these cadets, who were once training at the nation’s top military institutes such as the National Defence Academy (NDA) and Indian Military Academy (IMA).
According to the report, since 1985, nearly 500 officer cadets had been medically discharged from military academies after suffering varying degrees of disability during training.
Many now face mounting medical expenses, surviving on an ex-gratia allowance of just ₹40,000 per month: an amount far short of their actual needs.
At the National Defence Academy (NDA) alone, around 20 cadets were discharged on medical grounds between 2021 and (July) 2025.
During the hearing today, the top court asked the Ministry of Defence to examine whether the rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD Act) should extend to such cadets, whether compensation structures are adequate, and whether avenues of re-induction or rehabilitation within the forces could be created.
What is the legal vacuum and its consequences?
Despite having cleared the rigorous entry tests for Army, Navy, or Air Force academies, cadets are not commissioned officers until training is successfully completed.
If they suffer disabilities before commissioning, they fall outside the formal definition of ex-servicemen. Consequently, they do not qualify for pensionary benefits, disability insurance, or resettlement schemes available to veterans.
The counsel for affected cadets highlighted that in many cases, even ex-gratia payments were denied and insurance cover was absent.
At this, the bench said:
“If there is no disability they would have joined the forces. But this is unfortunate that they meet with an accident during training not owing to their negligence. How to take care of such people?”
Compensation, insurance, and rehabilitation
The top court identified three broad areas for reform: compensation, insurance, and rehabilitation and re-induction. The court even contemplated bringing them under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).
At present, the stipend available to disabled cadets is paltry. The Court questioned whether this could be enhanced, especially in light of inflation and the permanent impact such injuries had on livelihoods.
Similarly, in terms of insurance, unlike serving officers and soldiers, cadets are often outside the umbrella of service-related insurance schemes. This exposes families to crippling medical costs. The Bench suggested extending group insurance cover from the very start of training.
As for rehabilitation and re-induction, the SC mooted the possibility of reassessing cadets after treatment to explore whether they could rejoin the forces (perhaps in non-combat or desk roles), or else be re-trained for alternative careers. Such rehabilitation, it noted, is not merely charity, but a recognition of their interrupted service to the nation.
Disability rights
A crucial legal question is whether the RPwD Act 2016—India’s principal disability rights law—applies to disabled cadets. The counsel for the cadets argued it does not, leaving them in a grey zone.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati assured the Court that a comprehensive affidavit would be filed after consultations with the concerned ministries, including Defence, Finance, and Social Justice. The Court directed that suggestions from cadet representatives be shared with her.
The matter will be heard next on September 4, giving the government time to propose a structured response.
The case is not only about compensation. It raises fundamental questions about how the State views those who dedicate themselves to the armed forces.
Training accidents, often during physically punishing exercises, are occupational risks of military preparation. To treat these injuries as private misfortunes rather than as service-related sacrifices undermines both morale and equity.
