The Union government has informed the Bombay High Court that Agniveers cannot claim parity with regular soldiers regarding pensionary benefits for their next of kin, arguing that the two categories are “differently placed” and governed by distinct terms of engagement.
In an affidavit filed recently, the Centre defended the constitutional validity of the Agnipath scheme’s structure, asserting that the differentiation in benefits is a policy decision rooted in national security requirements and does not violate fundamental rights.
The government’s response comes in the wake of a petition filed by Jyotibai Naik, the mother of Agniveer Murali Naik. Murali Naik was killed in action on May 9 last year during heavy cross-border shelling in the Poonch sector of Jammu & Kashmir. The incident occurred during ‘Operation Sindoor,’ a retaliatory military action following a terror strike in Pahalgam.
Represented by advocates Sandesh More, Hemant Ghadigaonkar, and Hitendra Gandhi, the petitioner argued that the Agnipath scheme creates an “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” distinction. The plea contended that since Agniveers perform the same duties and face the same life-threatening risks as regular soldiers, their families should be entitled to the same full death benefits, including long-term pensions.
Rejecting the claim for parity, the Centre’s affidavit stated that Agniveers are not “similarly situated” as regular soldiers. The government argued that while regular service is a long-term career, the Agnipath scheme is a fixed four-year engagement designed to meet contemporary security challenges.
“There can be no parity between two differently placed classes of persons,” the affidavit noted. “The classification and differentiation have a rational nexus with the objectives of the Agnipath scheme and are therefore, constitutionally valid under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The government further clarified that the classification is based on “intelligible differentia,” including the tenure of service, the nature of the engagement, and the specific conditions of recruitment.
The Centre emphasized that the Agnipath scheme is a critical policy evolution aimed at maintaining a “youthful, agile, and technologically advanced” armed force. Highlighting the “peculiar border situation” and persistent infiltration attempts by hostile neighbors, the government stated that India requires a unique force capable of handling proxy wars and aggression.
The affidavit also pointed out that judicial review in policy decisions involving national integrity and security remains limited. It noted that the constitutional validity of the scheme has already been upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
Addressing the specific case of Murali Naik, the government informed the court that he was declared a “battle casualty” and his last rites were performed with full military honors. The Centre stated that his mother had received a “heartfelt” condolence letter from the commanding officer, consistent with the protocol for any soldier killed in action.
Regarding financial support, the affidavit stated: “All admissible financial and terminal benefits under the Agnipath scheme have been duly disbursed to the petitioner. The total compensation amounts to approximately ₹2.3 crore, which includes insurance cover and compensation.”
The government maintained that having accepted the terms of the scheme at the time of recruitment, the petitioner cannot retrospectively seek benefits reserved for a different category of service.
The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on June 18.
