Amidst a raging debate on the Next of Kin (NOK) rules for pension and other benefits, a repealed law of the Armed Forces has taken centre stage. Notably, in a media interaction, martyr Captain Anshuman Singh’s father recently demanded a revision of the NOK rules.
He also offered to marry his second son to the martyr’s wife so that Captain Singh’s aggrieved family could continue to receive monetary benefits.
However, it is pertinent to note that this was a mandatory law in the armed forces till 2017 which restricted the choice of martyr’s wife to start afresh and re-marry and forced her to remarry her brother-in-law to continue receiving monetary allowances.
Wow. So until 2017, the widow of a gallantry awardee would continue to receive monetary allowances after remarriage only if she married her deceased husband's brother. The Modi Govt removed this rule.
— Sensei Kraken Zero (@YearOfTheKraken) July 12, 2024
Holy Shit what kind of crazy rules did the Congress impose on Indians, man pic.twitter.com/QM4J4FvFSa
According to this law, the government used to deny monetary allowance to the widow of a gallantry awardee in case if she remarried. However, the martyr’s widow could continue to receive the allowances only if she married her brother-in-law and “lived a communal life with the living eligible heir.”
However, on 16th November 2017, the Modi government repealed the ‘regressive’ law after receiving several representations from various quarters including the Army Tribunal.
The Ministry of Defence released an official communication in this regard in November 2017. In a press note titled, ‘Monetary Allowance for Widows of Gallantry Awards Recipients’.
It mentioned that the recipients of the gallantry awards are entitled to the monetary allowance as per the letter of 1972 of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), superseded by a letter in 1995 of the MoD, which has been revised from time to time.
As per the then-existing condition (till November 2017) for the grant of monetary allowance, the allowance shall be admissible to the award recipient and on his death to his widow lawfully married by a valid ceremony. The widow will continue to receive the allowance until her remarriage or death. The payment of the allowance will, however, be continued to a widow who re-marries the late husband’s brother and lives a communal life with the living heir eligible for a family pension, the official Ministry of Defence note stated.
It added that the Ministry received representations from various quarters to remove the condition of the widow’s remarriage with the late husband’s brother for continuation of the monetary allowance. After considering their recommendation, the Modi government “removed” this condition through a letter dated 16th November 2017.
Since then, the revised condition for the grant of monetary allowance for recipients of gallantry awards is as under-
“The allowance shall be admissible to the recipient of the award and on his death to his widow lawfully married by a valid ceremony. The widow will continue to receive the allowance until her death.”
While the law has been repealed, in many cases, the practice of a martyr’s wife marrying her brother-in-law still continues to keep the compensation money within the family. Several cases lingered on in courts years after the law was repealed.
Notably, four years after the Modi government repealed the mandatory condition, the Armed Forces Tribunal in October 2021 declared regulations that deprive a soldier’s widow of liberalised family pension (LFP) if she remarries anyone other than her husband’s brother as “void”. The tribunal termed it “highly discriminatory” and a violation of public policy.
The tribunal had ruled, “A widow is competent and entitled to remarry according to her choice and will. The conditions preventing the remarriage of the widow or restricting her choice to marry to the late husband’s brother alone for claiming LFP will only be conditions imposed in restraint of marriage and hence, violate the public policy to be followed in respect of marriage. Therefore, those two conditions… are void as they are against the public policy in respect of marriage.”
