Supreme Court of India invokes Article 142, Constitution of India to grant Pensionary Benefits to widow of Gallantry Awardee

As reported on LiveLaw, the Supreme Court of India has directed that the widow of a General Reserve Engineering Force ("GREF") Employee, who passed away while saving his colleagues during a road construction along the India-China border, be released an amount of Rs 10 Lakhs (1 Million) in arrears of Extra Ordinary Family Pension from the date of death of her husband.

During construction of an strategically important road on the India-China border, Late Mohan Singh spotted a mass coming down a hill-top and hurtling towards their team, he raised an alarm and instructed the dozer operators to move to a safer place. Unfortunately, he was swept away by the impact of the mass which led him to fall 70 meters deep into the valley below. In view of his extraordinary bravery, the Government of India conferred the "Shaurya Chakra" on him, India's third-highest peacetime gallantry award. 

Despite the above, the widow was not in receipt of Extra-Ordinary Family Pension and her representation was rejected stating she had already received compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, India, initially directed release of the Extra-Ordinary Pension to the widow of the deceased, however restricted the arrears to three years from the date of filing of the petition instead of from the date of death. 

In Appeal, the Supreme Court of India, noting the peculiar facts of the case, exercised their powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and extended the benefit from the date of death of the deceased GREF employee. Accordingly, the Union was directed to release an amount of Rs 10 Lakhs (1 Million) to the widow. 

Permanent Commission denied to Women Officers due to inadequate Infrastructure : Indian Coast Guard submits before the Supreme Court of India

In a rather peculiar exchange reported by Livelaw, it appears that the Indian Coast Guard has been unable to extend the benefit of Permanent Commission to its women officers on account of "qualitative" differences between the Indian Coast Guard ("ICG") and the Indian Navy when it comes to "infrastructure". The petitioner who approached the Supreme Court of India highlighted that the ICG also denies having a policy for grant of Permanent Commission to women officers. 

The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Commandant (General Duty Women) in the year 2009 and subsequently was promoted to the post of Commandant (JG) in the year 2021, when she submitted her request for permanent absorption into the ICG. No action was taken on her request for over a year after which she was informed that the Ministry of Defence Letter dated 25 February 2019, which extended the grant of permanent commission to women, did not apply to the ICG and that no procedure existed for induction of women in the permanent cadre at the time of her enrolment. Consequently, the Petitioner was released in December, 2023. 

Pertinently, the petitioner has around 4500 hours of flying experience which is more than both men and women officers. She also highlighted that the ICG denied her Child Care Leave while she was in service and she had to leave her 15 month old baby behind to join service in the Andamans and Nicobar Islands during her tenure. 

While the above sad state of affairs show nothing short of pervasive institutional discrimination against women officers, the submissions by the State during the proceedings reveals a mindset problem and direct discrimination. The State blatantly submitted that permanent commission was being denied to women officers due to "certain special facilities required for women" being absent in ICG. 

Unimpressed by the above submission, the Supreme Court of India observed in no uncertain terms that "If she (Petitioner) is absorbed by them (ICG) themselves, fine. If not, we will pass an order. We can't allow an officer to be humiliated like this. From the list of eligible officers, we find she is the senior most. Let them show sportsmanship." 

On the alleged lack of infrastructure when compared to the Indian Navy, the Apex Court noted that - It (the difference) is not of such nature that they can be deprived completely" and that "Hyper-technical objections will not work. If you have a system for men officers, how can you deny [PC] to women officers?

Old Wine In New Bottle: British Military Justice System Remains Broken

A recently leaked British Ministry of Defense report details how (at least according to the BBC, which fails to link to the actual report it cites) its new-ish Defence Serious Crime Command (DSCC) is plagued by similar issues that led to its creation:  primarily, the lack of sufficiently trained and resourced investigators as well as insufficient support to victims, particularly in the arena of military sexual assaults. 

The creation of the DSCC in 2022 was animated by the need to "to investigate serious crimes independently, outside the military's chain of command." Unlike in the U.S. military justice system, in which commanders still (despite structural conflicts of interest plus lack of training and experience) retain prosecutorial discretion over the bulk of crimes found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Brits rightly moved prosecutorial discretion away from commanders to lawyers outside of the chain of command starting back in 1996, with additional statutory reform in 2006. 

Despite being far ahead of the U.S. in recognizing & remedying the dysfunction and unfairness of military commanders wielding prosecutorial discretion,  the Brits are apparently still struggling with the need for greater resourcing & professionalization of criminal investigations. 

As with the U.S. military, the deleterious effects of such mismanagement are felt by individual British service members, who for example -- at least according to this reporting -- don't feel confident that their allegations will be taken seriously. 

At least the British military is seemingly supported by its leadership in fixing these issues to a far greater degree than across the pond, where the U.S.military is commanded by a president who was found by a jury to to have committed sexual assault and has joked about grabbing women by their genitalia -- and further "led" (I use the word loosely) by a Secretary of Defense who was credibly accused (just read the report) of sexual assault and is more worried about how much testosterone American troops have than about making those in uniform more confident that their allegations of sexual assault will be taken seriously (ps:  what I believe was criminally reckless behavior by U.S. Navy military commanders led to a young U.S. service woman's brutal murder at the hands of a fellow Navy service member last year; murderer went to jail, but same leadership & same broken system will, I fear, lead to more sexual assaults and murders of young American women in uniform ... far more needs to be done in the memory of Vanessa Guillen and Angelina Resendiz, and for all who volunteer to wear the American military uniform).

Whelan v Canada, 2026 FC 923: Is this a chink in the Crown's justiciability armour?

A little over a month ago, Madam Justice Nowak of the Federal Court (now retired) handed down a decision regarding the justiciability of actions against the Crown brought by members (or former members) of the Canadian Forces (CF).  In light of intervening developments, the significance of this decision remains uncertain, but Justice Nowak's decision and reasons are worth examining:

Whelan v Canada, 2026 FC 923

Some background will assist in understanding the trajectory of this litigation.

2025 edition of Chief Judge Maggs's compendium of UCMJ amendments

Thanks to GW Law's Jacob Burns Law Library's handy Military Justice Research Guide, readers can access CAAF Chief Judge Gregory E. Maggs's compendium of Amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice Since 1950 (2025 edition). The document, available here, was last updated June 25, 2025.