Sacked for being HIV+, soldier knocks at SC door

November 13, 2007

Express News Service. Posted online: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at

0000 hrs

New Delhi November 12: A former Army employee on Monday approached

the Supreme Court against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which

upheld the Army's order to dismiss him from service for being an HIV

positive person.

The petitioner, while making the Union Government and the Army chief

respondents, among others, claims that his services were terminated

under Army Rule 13 on the grounds that he had contracted AIDS,

consequently became blind and was unable to serve. The Madhya Pradesh

High Court later dismissed a writ appeal filed by the petitioner.

Challenging this, the petitioner says that " while it may be true in

many cases that the onset of AIDS would result in a person becoming

physically unfit so as to perform his duties in the Army; the same is

certainly not true for an HIV positive person. HIV positive persons

serve in the US Army and in the armies of several European countries.

Positive persons are also active sportsmen. The distinction between

being HIV positive and having AIDS is one of progression and an HIV

positive person can live a normal and physically active life for an

indefinite period which has been lengthened due to the new drugs

available in the market. "

The petitioner further contended that the Army authorities took an

excuse of the blindness which in fact was merely temporary and

occurred due to the wrong treatment given to him at the Military

Hospital, Jabalpur which was subsequently cured by the medical

authorities at Command Hospital, Pune. Moreover, the HC also failed

to consider the report given by the AIDS Health Care Foundation where

it was said that the tests, described in the medical sheet, were

inconclusive of the diagnosis of Neurotuberculosis (an AIDS related

ailment).

The actual contraction of sexually transmitted diseases is not a

military offence and cannot be punished as such. On being HIV

positive alone would not entitle the army to discharge him, the

petitioner argued.

Recommended Posts