Punjab and Haryana High Court directs grant of compassionate appointment to son of a "Battle Casualty" Army Officer

The Tribune reported that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the Rejection Letters and directed the State of Haryana, India, to consider appointment of the son of a "Battle Casualty" Army Officer on compassionate grounds under the Welfare Policy of the State of Haryana.  

The Petitioner's father was a serving officer of the Indian Army who laid down his life while serving in "Operation Snow Leopard", an operation launched by the Indian Army to counter Chinese aggression and halt advancing Chinese forces gaining territory in India. The Petitioner's father passed away due to extreme operational climatic conditions in Leh, Ladakh, India and his death was duly declared as a "Battle Casualty" by the Indian Army as per Army Order 05/2020.

Despite being covered by the State of Haryana's policy dated 28-09-2018 governing compassionate appointment for dependants of Battle Casualty, his application which was duly endorsed by the Indian Army, was rejected by the State of Haryana by a non-speaking order whereby, it was communicated to the Petitioner that he was covered by a new policy of the State of Haryana on the subject dated 14-08-2023. Notably, this Policy did not have any retrospective application. Further, the Respondents submitted that the father of the Petitioner "had not died in action, but had died due to disease". 

The Bench characterised the above submissions as preposterous, crass and ignorant and even pointed out that the condition suffered by the soldier was in active service at a battlefront. Relying on the precedent of Jai Dev Vs State of Haryana & Others, as well as Major Arvind Kumar Suhag v. State of Haryana, the Bench summarised that once the Ministry of Defence certifies a death as "Battle Casualty" the State cannot dispute the characterisation for extending policy benefits.  

The decision affirms that death as a result of active hostilities is not a precondition for Battle Casualty status as well as for extension of welfare policies to the dependants of fallen personnel. 

Clergy are no long exempt from obligatory military service in Switzerland

The Swiss Government has lifted a long-held exemption for clergy from military service. Meanwhile, Catholic Church leaders have protested what they considered to be an “arbitrary” abolition of this traditional military service exemption for the clergy. 

Moreover, during the legislative procedure considering the adoption of this measure none of the national Christian denominations were informed of this initiative nor was any invited to comment to comment on the appropriateness of this initiative.  Auxiliary Bishop Alain de Raemy, the head of the Swiss Catholic military chaplaincy concluded that this decision reflect a “ lack of respect for the [Swiss] population.”  

 See article by The Catholic Register dated 21 July 2026 by Jonathan Luxmoore. OSV News. “Swiss scrap clergy military service exemption?”

The Status of Forces

Hannah Al-Othman, MoD cancels army training in Kenya over powers to prosecute British soldiers.The Guardian (UK), 23 July 2026.

The British army has been forced to cancel training for its troops in Kenya after the Kenyan government refused to ratify a bilateral defence agreement.

While the UK government wanted to renew the existing agreement, Kenyan lawmakers had sought changes to give local authorities greater powers to hold British soldiers accountable for any offences committed in the country.

According to the Kenyan news outlet the Daily Nation, the dispute centres on which cases Kenya will retain primary jurisdiction over, while the amount of money Britain pays Kenya to host the training camp has also been a sticking point.

This comes at an interesting time when the UK government appears to be under criticism over the application of the NATO SOFA and the U.S. Air Force taking taking jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by servicemembers in the UK. See Harry Davies and Rob Evans,‘Degrading’: why did a US fighter pilot avoid British trial after strangling a woman in England? The Guardian (UK), 25 June 2026.

CAAF Notice re AI, July 1, 2026

United States Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces

AI Use in Filings Before the Court

NOTICE

Litigants and their counsel are reminded that they are responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents, including those produced with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence. Counsel are reminded of their duties under Rule 38(a) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which states a counsel’s signature certifies that all filings have been reviewed for truthfulness and accuracy. Any violation or use of AI-generated briefing that misstates the law may be subject to sanction.

                                                                                    For the Court,

                                                                                    /s/ Malcolm H. Squires, Jr.

                                                                                     Clerk of the Court

Landmark ruling in South Korea

Disrespect? Consider this recent decision from the Republic of Korea's Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court ruled that a petty officer in the Navy did not commit the offense of insulting a superior under the Military Criminal Act when, aboard a naval vessel, the petty officer threw off a headset and said, "The commander is a mess," after a superior, a captain, refused to accept the petty officer's opinion. As a result, a Supreme Court precedent established in 1999 was changed after 27 years.

The Supreme Court en banc (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) on the 22nd overturned the lower court ruling that had sentenced Navy Petty Officer First Class A to six months in prison, suspended for one year, for the offense of insulting a superior under the Military Criminal Act, and sent it back with a ruling of not guilty.

The full article from ChosunBiz can be found here. The decision is not yet available on the English page of the Supreme Court's website.