Chandigarh: The issue of discrimination against Defence Officer Cadets who are medically boarded out of defence academies has been raised repeatedly before the Union government and in the public domain. Yet, despite years of discussion and deliberation, it has failed to reach a just and durable resolution. The discrimination persists, to the profound detriment of young cadets who, through no fault of their own, struggle to rebuild their lives medically, professionally and financially perhaps most painfully, with the sense that they no longer belong anywhere.There appears to be a lack of will to resolve what has become a bermuda triangle of law, policy and administrative inertia.The gravity of the issue is underscored by the fact that the Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the matter and is presently seized of it.The issueUnder the existing arrangement, a Defence Officer Cadet who is medically boarded out receives a relatively meagre allowance of Rs 9,000 per month called ex gratia, fixed as far back as 1996, together with a limited disability allowance. By contrast, an officer cadet in a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) academy, on being medically boarded out, receives pensionary benefits based on the rank he or she or they would have held upon successful completion of training, together with other benefits, including medical care etc, available to an ex-CAPF officer.Both categories of cadets are selected through broadly comparable processes and undergo rigorous training. Defence training may be more exacting because of the distinctive roles and responsibilities of the armed forces, but the underlying covenant is the same: young men and women preparing themselves to serve the nation.Yet, when fate intervenes and injury or disability abruptly terminates that journey, the state treats them very differently.The discriminationThe distinction appears to arise principally from the legal status of the Officer Cadet.A CAPF cadet is enrolled and appointed upon joining the academy. A defence academy cadet, on the other hand, receives a commission only upon successful completion of training.But is this distinction sufficient to justify such disparate consequences for two young people who suffer disabling injuries while preparing to serve the nation? That is the fundamental question.The important questionWhy has the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) provided pensionary and related protection to CAPF officer cadets who are medically boarded out during training?The rationale appears self-evident: to assure those who volunteer to serve the nation that the CAPF will stand by them from the very inception of their journey. Such assurance enables cadets to train without apprehension, secure in the knowledge that should injury or disability supervene, they and their families will not be abandoned.Should the Ministry of Defence and the generals responsible for the armed forces not extend the same assurance to defence academy cadets?Why should a young person who volunteers to serve the nation receive lesser protection merely because the law chooses to confer a commission at a later stage?Is this not, in substance, step-motherly treatment?Is this fair and reasonable?Why should the absence of a commission during training become an insuperable impediment to fairness?We have an institutional hierarchy, experienced leadership and administrative machinery at every level. These systems exist not merely to perpetuate the status quo, but to discern injustice and rectify it. These young men and women enter defence academies imbued with the same spirit of service and sacrifice. They accept the risks inherent in military training because they aspire to serve the nation as commissioned officers.If the state expects them to accept those risks, surely it must assume a corresponding responsibility when those very risks materialise.Status quo continuesIt is difficult to comprehend how such an arrangement was permitted to arise in 1996. It is still difficult to comprehend how, despite the issue being raised repeatedly over the decades, no meaningful correction has followed.Is it that no one had the wisdom or the courage to get to grips with the issue and resolve it?The problem has been discussed. Committees have examined it. Legal opinions have been obtained. Suggestions have been made. Yet the injustice endures.What appears to have been wanting is not a solution, but the resolve to find and implement one.What the constitution of India saysThe matter is now before the Supreme Court of India. One constitutional question likely to arise is the application of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that equality does not mandate identical treatment in every circumstance. Defence academy cadets and CAPF cadets are not legally identical.But that is not the real question.The real question is whether the disparity in their treatment, particularly when both suffer disabling injuries while undergoing training for public service, can be justified on rational, relevant and constitutionally sustainable grounds.That question merits serious consideration.But must we await a direction from the Supreme Court before the Ministry of Defence does what, in principle, ought to have been addressed administratively long ago?Interventions so farA Raksha Mantri Expert Committee was constituted in 2015 to examine this very issue. It reportedly made positive recommendations, but these were not accepted, apparently because implementation would have necessitated changes to recruitment and pension rules.Legal advice was subsequently sought, suggesting that the issue could be resolved through a simple amendment to the Pension Rules: “The boarded-out cadet be deemed to be an officer on the day of boarding out.”Even this solution, a fairly practical one, was not accepted.Surely, if one avenue is foreclosed, others remain.One possible approach is to appoint defence cadets upon joining the academy, place them on probation and confer a commission upon successful completion of training.The precise mechanism can be devised by those entrusted with the responsibility. Legal, financial and administrative complexity should occasion ingenuity, not inaction.The real question, therefore, is not whether a solution exists.The real question is whether there is the will to find one.On being boarded outFor an Officer Cadet who is medically boarded out, the consequences are not merely administrative. They can alter the trajectory of an entire life.The cadet and family may suddenly become responsible for medical treatment, rehabilitation and long-term care, costs that can be prohibitive. There have been cases of cadets rendered paraplegic or bedridden for years, leaving families to shoulder not only the financial burden but also the immense physical and emotional responsibility of their care.Although a government policy exists to treat such cadets as ex-servicemen for the limited purpose of civil employment, its implementation is still not uniform across the states. This has generated further uncertainty for families already confronting profound adversity. But beyond money, employment and medical care lies something deeper: recognition and belonging.Today, an Officer Cadet medically boarded out of a defence academy can find himself belonging to no service at all. He was once a proud cadet, selected on merit, trained to serve and prepared to wear the uniform. Yet, after injury truncates that journey, he may be left without the institutional identity he had worked so assiduously to earn.It is a poignant paradox: who was considered worthy enough to be selected and trained to serve the nation, yet once injured while preparing to do so, can find himself outside the very system he sought to join.Only in August 2025, the government extended treatment and care under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) to such cadets. This is a welcome and long-overdue measure. But it also raises a larger question: why did it take so long?Surat Singh Sandhu is a retired major general.