1

BRIEFING NOTE ON
PUSHPA VANTI V. UNION OF INDIA [W.P. (CIVIL) NO.291 OF 2010]

Pushpa Vanti v. Union of India [W.P. (Civil) No.291 of 2010]

1.1 This petition was filed by a widow of an army major who had fought
three wars (1948, 1962 and 1965) and was decorated with fourteen medals.
This petition was against the Central Government on the grounds that the
petitioner was getting only Rs.80 per month as pension for her deceased
husband’s services as an army major.

1.2 The Court directed the Central Government to set up within two months
of the judgment a Commission which shall be called “Armed Forces
Grievances Redressal Commission”. The Court also laid down the
functions and powers of this Commission. This Commission will:

look into grievances by serving or former members of armed forces
(i.e. Army, Navy and Air Force), or their widows or family
members and make suitable recommendations “expeditiously to
the Central Government in this connection”; [pr.11]

frame and recommend to the Central Government a scheme for
proper rehabilitation of ex-armed forces personnel who are retired
at a relatively young age; [pr.12]

1.3 The composition of the Commission was laid down as:

“1. A retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Chairman of the
Commission. The first Chairman shall be Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip
Singh, former Judge Supreme Court.

2. A former Chief Justice of the High Court as the Vice-Chairman of the

Commission. The Vice-Chairman will officiate as the Chairman in absence
of the Chairman. The first Vice-Chairman shall be Hon’ble Mr. Justice
S.S. Sodhi, retired Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

3. A retired Chief of Army Staff as a Member of the Commission.

We appoint General V.P. Malik, retired Chief of Army Staff, to be a
Member of the Commission.
 2

4. Any retired Chief or Vice-Chief or Deputy Chief of the Army, Navy or

Air Force as a Member of the Commission. In the first Commission we
appoint Lt. General Vijay Oberoi, retired Vice Chief of Army Staff, to be a
Member of the Commission.” [pr.13, emphasis supplied]

1.4 The term of the Commission will be two years. Further, the Court using a
reverse logic decided that the Headquarters of this Commission will be at
Chandigarh as most of the members suggested above are from
Chandigarh. Also, ‘set-up’ offices of the Commission will be established in
other cities. [pr.17]

1.5 The Court emphasised the distinction between the Armed Forces
Grievances Redressal Commission and the existing Armed Forces
Tribunal on the following grounds:

This Commission is a recommendatory and not adjudicatory body.
The recommendations will not be binding on the Central
Government.

The Commission may not follow the existing rules and can also
recommend relevant changes/amendments to the rules.

1.6 The Court did not decide the petitioner’s claim and referred this claim to
the Commission.