New Delhi: Speculation about a former Army adjutant general’s probable appointment to the armed forces tribunal (AFT) has led a lawyer to write a letter to the Modi government and the AFT opposing it.
The lawyer has cited controversial comments made by Lt Gen. Ashwani Kumar (Retd) about disabled soldiers and call for a code of conduct for veterans to claim his appointment to the AFT would be in “total conflict of interest”.
The remarks in question were made by Lt Gen. Kumar in an interview to News X in 2019 amid a raging debate about a government proposal to tax disability pensions unless injuries suffered in the line of duty force one out of service. The proposal, brought amid allegations of the provision being misused, was subsequently rolled back.
The lawyer’s letter has been marked to the appointments committee of the Cabinet, the AFT chairman, and the Department of Personnel and Training, among others. The fact that it was sent by a lawyer was confirmed by sources, but his/her identity remains unknown.
The date of the letter is not known but it was shared on Twitter Friday by an advocacy handle working in the interest of the armed forces medical services.
Received as a Whats App forward. Never believe WA forwards but this retired Lt Gen has been trying hard to be Adm member of AFT. His disdain & contempt for disabled soldiers is well known. Request @DoPTGoI @rajnathsingh ji @PMOIndia @narendramodi ji to please stop this travesty. pic.twitter.com/g2MJ9Mnjn5
— DACP for AFMS Doctors (@DACP_AFMS_Docs) July 24, 2020
Approached for comment, Lt Gen. Kumar replied on text that he is “not aware of any such appointment”.
Also Read: Wide variation in disability pensions of jawans, officers creating ‘heartburn’: CDS Rawat
‘Impartial judgment would be compromised’
An adjutant general is the head of a critical wing of the Army that takes care of administrative and legal affairs. In the aforementioned interview, Lt Gen. Kumar, who retired last year, sought to delink what he termed lifestyle diseases from conditions or ailments that make personnel eligible for a disability pension.
He also said low hearing could not be seen as a disability because there were aids available to help patients hear normally.
In the same interview, Kumar expressed support for a controversial proposal to bind retired military personnel by a code of conduct.
In the letter, the lawyer has said that Lt Gen. has a defamation case pending against him in connection with his comments.
“It would be in total conflict of interest to appoint such a person, who has made such comments live on TV against disabled soldiers, and then expect him to give justice to them in the armed forces tribunal,” the lawyer has stated.
“The entire concept of impartial judgement and fair play would naturally be compromised by appointment of a person who has openly declared a position on television in such a manner that has made his unfortunate bias apparent,” the lawyer added.
The lawyer also said Kumar had made “disparaging” comments regarding service-related matters pending before the Supreme Court.
The letter starts by claiming that “Kumar has applied” for appointment to the AFT, but adds “in case he has not applied for the job, and his file is not pending with the Govt, the communication can be ignored”.
‘He was quoted differently’
Within the military, the letter has found both supporters and critics.
A military lawyer, who claimed there was some talk of Kumar’s appointment to AFT, said his statements reflected his “bias”, and it would thus be a conflict of interest if he were to deal with cases of disabled soldiers.
“He would be dealing with the same cases of disabled soldiers against whom he made the statements,” the lawyer said.
However, another Army officer said there was nothing undesirable in Kumar’s statements against any disabled soldier.
“At least thrice in that interview, it has been said that the disability pension is a fair and due compensation to any soldier who has acquired disability in the line of duty. Despite that, it has been quoted differently in various corners,” the officer said.
“In fact, there was a suggestion in the service headquarters on depriving those drawing disability pension from ECHS (Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme) facility, but he was the one who opposed it and convinced the services against it,” the officer said, adding that Kumar gave the interview in uniform as adjutant general, which made it clear that it was not his personal opinion but the organisation’s point of view.
Also Read: SC rejects disability pension plea of soldier, says injury not linked to military service
These are legitimate “perks of office” for having loyally served at an important appointment in Army HQs.
His actions are unlikely to be clouded by his past stance(s), which were taken at the dictates of the circumstances under which he had worked!
I wonder what wrong did he said.