Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 644Decided 7 May 2025
C.A. No.-000998 of 2025 (@ Diary No. 20836 of 2022)
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Background

The appellant enrolled in the Indian Army as a sepoy in 1988 and, after more than nine years of service, was discharged in 1998 after being diagnosed with schizophrenia. An Invalidating Medical Board opined that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and was constitutional in nature, so his disability pension claim was rejected. His subsequent appeals (to an appellate committee, through a Member of Parliament, and finally to the Armed Forces Tribunal) were all unsuccessful.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under the applicable Entitlement Rules, a disease manifesting during service carries a presumption that it is attributable to or aggravated by service, and this presumption can only be displaced by cogent, well-reasoned medical findings, not a bare conclusion. It found the Medical Board's opinion lacked the necessary supporting reasons to rebut this presumption, so the denial of pension could not be sustained. However, given that 27 years had passed since discharge, the Court declined to send the matter back for fresh medical reconsideration. Instead, it left the discharge order undisturbed but directed that disability pension be granted with immediate effect and all attendant benefits, though without full back-arrears (limited to the last three years).

Lesson Learnt

Soldiers benefit from a statutory presumption that a disease which arises during service is connected to that service; the burden falls on the military authorities to give cogent, reasoned grounds to rebut this presumption: an unexplained medical opinion is not enough to deny a disability pension.

Rajumon T.M. v. Union of India – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware