Supreme Court Advocates for Reserved Employment for Military Cadets with Training Injuries
New Delhi, August 4, 2026: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court urged all States and Union Territories to contemplate offering reservations to military cadets who are outboarded due to disabilities sustained during training. This would apply under the quota designated for "ex-military personnel," potentially improving their employment opportunities.
A Bench consisting of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan, while addressing the suo motu writ petition titled In Re: Cadets Disabled in Military Training Struggle (SMW(C) No. 6/2025), also instructed the Union of India to develop a welfare scheme for such cadets. This is especially intended for those with a benchmark disability less than 40 per cent, who may not completely benefit from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman, representing the Centre, was directed to seek necessary instructions on the matter.
The Court specified that cadets with a benchmark disability of 40 per cent or more are entitled to benefits under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. This law mandates that every appropriate government reserve no less than 4 per cent of total vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities in each group of posts. The Bench emphasized that these cadets should also be eligible for this provision and apply for employment accordingly.
Key Directions and Observations
The Court noted that the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, may not cover outboarded cadets in all circumstances, especially those with disabilities below 40 per cent. The order stated, "Therefore, for those cadets who are nevertheless outboarded and in respect of whom this Act does not apply, a suitable scheme must be prepared and extended to them." ASG Venkataraman committed to obtaining instructions on this issue.
The Court expressed appreciation for States and Union Territories that have already categorized outboarded cadets as 'ex-servicemen' for employment purposes. It encouraged other States and UTs to explore the possibility of incorporating these cadets into the "ex-military personnel" quota to enhance their job prospects in the reserved category.
Addressing the sensitive matter of nomenclature, Justice Nagarathna suggested a distinction between cadets who could not be commissioned due to training injuries and those who completed training and joined the forces. She remarked that while they might be loosely referred to as ex-servicemen, there should be a distinction. The Court aims to provide appropriate benefits without fully extending the "ex-servicemen" label.
The Bench also acknowledged the significant disappointment experienced by these young cadets and their families. Many had successfully passed rigorous entrance exams and joined premier training institutions, only for their careers to be cut short by accidents during training that were not due to any negligence on their part.
Background of the Suo Motu Case
The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings in August 2025 following media reports, particularly investigative stories in The Indian Express, highlighting the severe hardships faced by officer cadets medically discharged from institutions like the National Defence Academy (NDA), Indian Military Academy (IMA), Officers Training Academy (OTA), Air Force Academy, and Indian Naval Academy due to training-related disabilities.
These cadets previously lacked the full benefits available to commissioned officers or other ranks with disabilities. They received limited ex-gratia payments and faced rising medical expenses without formal recognition as ex-servicemen, hindering their access to government job reservations, comprehensive healthcare under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), and other resettlement measures. Estimates suggest there are between a few hundred and around 2,000–2,500 affected cadets over the years, with about 40–50 boarded out annually across academies. Most are in their 20s and 30s, making employment and rehabilitation crucial. Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Rekha Palli has supported the Court, emphasizing that many of these cadets can be rehabilitated with proper support.
Significant progress has occurred due to the Court’s ongoing oversight. Following earlier directions, the Ministry of Defence extended ECHS benefits to invalidated and outboarded cadets from August 29, 2025, covering their medical needs for life without a one-time subscription fee. The Court has also examined increasing the monthly ex-gratia amount (noting that rates fixed in 2017 required revision due to inflation), the feasibility of group insurance, rehabilitation into suitable desk or alternative roles where recovery permits, and reconsideration of recommendations by the 2015 Sabharwal Committee (led by Lt Gen (Retd) Mukesh Sabharwal), which suggested treating such cadets as ex-servicemen and providing disability pensions among other measures.
The 8th Central Pay Commission, now established, is expected to consider increasing ex-gratia payments. The Court allowed affected individuals to make representations before the Commission and expressed hope that the Commission, now chaired by a former female judge, would approach the matter with the needed compassion.
Implications and Way Forward
The recent directions represent a significant move towards offering structured employment support and welfare measures for a small but highly vulnerable group of young people who sustained life-changing injuries while preparing to serve the country. By encouraging States and UTs to open the "ex-military personnel" quota and affirming access to the 4 per cent disability reservation under the RPwD Act for those meeting the benchmark, the Court seeks to create practical pathways for livelihood.
The Centre has been tasked with developing a comprehensive scheme for those who do not meet the RPwD Act’s strict criteria. The matter is expected to be revisited on September 8, 2026.
The case highlights the judiciary’s concern that rigorous military training entails inherent risks, and those injured in the process should not be left without adequate institutional support, recognition, and opportunities for a dignified life.
