## Facts

- The Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and other registered bodies representing former defence personnel and their dependents filed a writ petition under Article 32 as a public interest litigation.
- The petition sought a declaration and directions requiring the Union of India to recognize and provide “full and free medicare” to ex-servicemen, their families, and dependents as a fundamental right, on par with in-service defence personnel.
- Petitioners alleged that existing arrangements for ex-servicemen were insufficient in scope and access, particularly for serious and terminal ailments and for those living far from military hospitals.
- While the petition was pending, the Union introduced the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) in 2002 to expand medical coverage for retired defence personnel through a wider network of facilities.
- ECHS required eligible ex-servicemen to make a one-time contribution (reported in the record as ranging roughly from Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 18,000), scaled by pension level, in exchange for membership and access to covered services.
- The matter reached a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, following references arising from questions about earlier case-law discussing the relationship between Article 21 and medical care.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition was maintainable as a PIL under Article 32 and whether the Confederation had locus standi to seek relief for ex-servicemen and their dependents.
2. Whether Articles 14 and 21 confer on ex-servicemen and their dependents an enforceable fundamental right to full, free, non-contributory medical care after retirement, equivalent to in-service defence personnel.
3. Whether providing different medical benefits to in-service defence personnel and ex-servicemen constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14.
4. Whether ECHS, including the requirement of a one-time contribution scaled to pension, is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconstitutional.
5. Whether committee/pay commission recommendations, historical materials, or alleged assurances created an enforceable legitimate expectation (or similar enforceable claim) of full and free medicare.

## Decision

- The Court treated the petition as maintainable and accepted that the Confederation, comprising registered ex-servicemen bodies, could pursue the matter in public interest.
- The Court declined to declare a fundamental right to “full and free medicare” for ex-servicemen and their dependents as claimed, and refused to issue a mandamus requiring parity with in-service defence personnel.
- The Court held that differential treatment between serving personnel and retirees, for purposes of medical facilities, rests on a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14.
- The Court upheld the ECHS framework, including its contributory structure and pension-linked one-time contribution, finding no constitutional infirmity warranting interference.
- The Court rejected reliance on non-binding recommendations and policy materials as creating an enforceable right or a basis to compel the State to provide a fully free, unlimited scheme.
- The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court leaving improvement of facilities and financial structuring primarily to governmental policy judgment.

## Legal Principles

- The right to life under Article 21 includes protection of health and access to medical care in appropriate contexts, but it does not automatically yield an enforceable entitlement to a particular welfare model (such as unlimited, non-contributory, fully free medicare for a defined group).
- Courts exercise limited review over socio-economic schemes and will not substitute their preferred design for executive choice unless the scheme is shown to be unconstitutional, arbitrary, or manifestly unreasonable.
- Article 14 allows differential treatment where (i) there is an intelligible differentia and (ii) the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved; serving defence personnel and ex-servicemen are not similarly situated for all service-linked benefits.
- A contributory welfare scheme is not unconstitutional merely because it requires beneficiary contribution, including a one-time payment, where the structure is rational and linked to ability to pay (such as pension-based slabs).
- Recommendations of committees and pay commissions, and policy discussions not crystallized into binding legal obligations, do not by themselves create an enforceable right or compel issuance of a writ directing implementation in a particular manner.
- Sympathy for a deserving class cannot justify judicial creation of a new, enforceable welfare entitlement that materially reallocates public resources; such choices ordinarily lie with the legislature and executive.

## Conclusion

In Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) upheld the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme and rejected the claim that ex-servicemen and their dependents possess a fundamental right to full, free, non-contributory medicare equal to serving personnel, holding that the serving/retired distinction is a reasonable classification and that health-welfare design and financing are primarily matters of governmental policy subject to limited constitutional review.


Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 2 MLJ 427 (SC)