Supreme Court Abolishes the “20 % Disability” Bar and Mandates 50 % Disability Element for All Invalided Personnel
(Commentary on BIJENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA, 2025 INSC 549)

1. Introduction

In Bijender Singh v. Union of India the Supreme Court of India decisively removed the long‑contested 20 % disability threshold that had often disentitled invalided Armed Forces personnel from receiving the disability element of their pension. While prior judgments (e.g., Dharamvir Singh, Sukhvinder Singh, K.J.S. Buttar) had moved in this direction, the Court in the present appeal synthesises those authorities into an unequivocal rule: once a soldier is invalided out of service for a service‑connected disability, he/she is automatically entitled to at least 50 % disability pension.

The decision overturns contrary findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Chandigarh, grants the appellant 50 % disability element with arrears from 1 January 1996, and lays down a binding precedent that will affect thousands of pending and future disability‐pension claims.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Tribunal had rejected the appellant’s claim because his disability was repeatedly rated below 20 % and declared “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service”.
• The Supreme Court holds these findings unsustainable, quashes both AFT orders (26 Feb 2016 & 22 Jan 2018), and directs payment of 50 % disability element w.e.f. 1 Jan 1996 with 6 % interest.
• Key holdings:
  • Once a person is invalided out, the disability is presumed above 20 % and service‑connected unless the employer rebuts it with cogent reasons.
  • The 20 % floor for entitlement became otiose after the 31 Jan 2001 MoD instructions (read with subsequent clarifications) and cannot be used to deny benefits even for pre‑1996 invalidment.
  • The presumption under Rules 5, 9 & 14 of the Entitlement Rules must be given full effect; the burden is on the State, not the soldier.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court consolidates a line of pro‑veteran decisions:

1. Dharamvir Singh v. UOI (2013)
   Established presumptions of good health at entry and service‑connection on invalidment; stressed liberal interpretation of beneficial legislation.
2. Rajbir Singh v. UOI (2015)
   Extracted guiding principles from Rules 5, 9 & 14 and emphasised that employers must rebut the presumption with reasons.
3. Angad Singh Titaria v. UOI (2015)
   Reaffirmed Dharamvir; highlighted mandatory duty of Medical Boards to supply cogent reasons.
4. Sukhvinder Singh v. UOI (2014)
   Held that invaliding presupposes disability above 20 % and attracts 50 % disability pension.
5. K.J.S. Buttar v. UOI (2011)
   Struck down cut‑off date of 1 Jan 1996 for “broad‑banding”; ruled discriminatory under Article 14.

The Supreme Court weaves these rulings together, expressly stating that the AFT erred by ignoring them, and transforms their ratio into an operational rule eliminating the 20 % hurdle.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

• Statutory Framework: Pension Regulations, 1961 (Regs. 173 & 183) + Entitlement Rules, 1982 (Rules 5, 9, 14) + MoD Instructions 31‑1‑2001 & 20‑7‑2006.
• Presumption of Attributability: In absence of any note at enrolment, Rule 14(b) deems subsequent disease to have arisen in service. Medical Board must record reasons to rebut; here none existed.
• Onus on the State: Rule 9 places burden on employer. The AFT shifted the burden to the soldier—legal error.
• Abolition of 20 % Threshold: Para 7.2 of the 2001 instructions “broad‑bands” any disability below 50 % to 50 %. When read with the 2006 SOP and Buttar, the 20 % entry bar no longer survives.
• Invaliding Implies >20 %: As clarified in Sukhvinder Singh, once a person is invalided out, it is logically inconsistent to say his disability is too minor for pension but severe enough to end career.
• Article 14 Violation: Denying benefits to pre‑1996 invalids (like the appellant) would be discriminatory after Buttar; the Court relies on this constitutional argument as an independent plank.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The ruling is likely to:

• Bind all Benches of the AFT to apply the “automatic 50 %” rule in invalidment cases, preventing inconsistent orders.
• Unlock pending claims of thousands of veterans whose disabilities were recorded below 20 % or held “non‑service‑connected”.
• Oblige the MoD to revisit disability assessments and pension sanctions issued under pre‑2025 interpretations.
• Reduce litigation by providing a clear, mechanical entitlement formula, thereby lowering the caseload of both AFT and Supreme Court.
• Financial Implications: Increased pension outgo; however, the Court implicitly balances this against constitutional equity and the morale of the forces.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Invaliding Medical Board (IMB)

A panel of military doctors that assesses a soldier’s medical fitness. If unfit for duty, the IMB recommends discharge (“invaliding”).

Disability Element vs. Service Element

Pension is split into two parts: the service element (akin to ordinary pension for years served) and the disability element (compensation for service‑related disability).

Broad‑Banding

Administrative policy that “rounds up” assessed disability to the next broad slab (50 %, 75 % or 100 %) to avoid hair‑split percentages and ensure equitable compensation.

Presumption of Attributability / Aggravation

Legal rule that any disease manifesting after enrolment is assumed linked to service unless the State proves otherwise.

5. Conclusion

Bijender Singh cements a veteran‑friendly doctrine: if the Army deems a soldier unfit to serve, the Nation must compensate him as though he suffers at least 50 % disability. The decision sweeps away the residual reliance on a 20 % qualifying bar, harmonises the regulatory maze with constitutional equality, and offers administrative clarity. It stands as a robust precedent obliging the Armed Forces and the Tribunal to adopt a presumption‑based, liberal approach, thereby honouring the service and sacrifice of military personnel.