Agnipath Under Fire: Why is the opposition (& some NDA allies) against the scheme?

Why is the opposition opposed to Agnipath scheme?

The Indian army's much debated Agnipath scheme was yet again under scrutiny on July 1, when the opposition stirred up a controversy by saying that the army treats its jawans as “use-and-throw" labour under the scheme.

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi said “Agniveers (term used for army jawans  under the scheme) are use-and-throw labour. One (regular, non-Agniveer) jawan is getting a pension, while another is not. You are creating a divide between jawans."

Claiming that the Agniveer scheme will be scrapped when the opposition comes to power, Gandhi said, "Agniveer is the PMO's (Prime Minister's Office) scheme, not the army's."

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that the opposition leader is misinformed and spreading lies in Parliament. Slamming Gandhi over his remarks that the kin of Agniveers won't get pension, Singh said the kin of Agniveer martyrs receive Rs 1 crore in compensation.

After Gandhi claimed that the kin of Ajay Kumar, an Agniveer who lost his life in the line of duty, did not receive any help, the army clarified that his kin has been paid Rs 98 lakh. "Certain posts on social media have stated that compensation hasn't been paid to the next of kin of Agniveer Ajay Kumar, who lost his life in the line of duty. Of the total amount due, his family has already been paid Rs 98.39 lakh," the army statement read.

Last month, the ruling BJP’s National Democratic Alliance (NDA) allies Janata Dal (United) and Jana Shakti Party (Ram Vilas) sought a review of the controversial Agnipath military recruitment scheme.

Per media reports, the Agnipath scheme may have even been the reason for the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's) loss in some key seats in Haryana.

Introduced in June 2022, the scheme generated controversy almost as soon as it was announced. Under the scheme, men between 17.5 years to 21 years of age will get a chance for long and short-term service in the armed forces. Applicants need to meet the medical eligibility conditions laid down for enrolment in various categories of the armed forces, and must be educated up to the 10th or 12th standard.

There were widespread protests against the scheme across the country, especially in  north Indian states such as Bihar, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, which contribute sizeably to the armed forces.

So, what is this scheme all about?

Features of the scheme

Those recruited under the scheme will serve for four years, including training. Thereafter, up to 25 percent of each batch could be absorbed into the regular armed forces, depending on the requirement. The rest will be given preference for certain jobs under the defence and home ministries (police, paramilitary forces, etc.)

The Agniveers will receive a gross  pay  of Rs 4.76 lakh in the first year, which will go up to Rs 6.92 lakh in fourth year. Additionally, they will also receive risk and hardship allowances.

At the end of four years, Agniveers will receive a Seva Nidhi of Rs 11.71 lakh, which will be tax exempt. However, there will be no gratuity and pension.

According to the scheme, the Agniveers will get a non-contributory life insurance cover of Rs 48 lakh for the duration of their engagement with the armed forces.

The validity of the scheme was challenged in various courts across India, which were all subsequently transferred to the Delhi High Court (HC) at the Supreme Court’s (SC's) direction. In February 2023, the Delhi HC upheld the scheme’s validity. In April 2023, the SC refused to interfere with the Delhi HC order, enabling the continuation of the scheme.

What were the objections against the scheme?

In the proceedings before the Delhi HC, those who challenged the scheme fell broadly into two categories. One was those who challenged the constitutional validity of the scheme. The other was those who had participated in the recruitment process of the army and were shortlisted, but were not appointed due to the subsequent announcement of the  scheme.

The candidates who had passed the recruitment test had contended that the government stopped recruitment  under the earlier scheme mid-way, without any intimation, and introduced the Agnipath scheme. As a result, now they cannot take part in the recruitment process as they are age-barred. The candidates moved court asking the government to complete the recruitment  that it had started under the old scheme.

Those who challenged the scheme's constitutional validity contended that the scheme was arbitrary and discriminatory, and given the Indian milieu, 3.5 years of service in the armed forces may be too short to be a viable option, as a sizeable chunk of these recruits may not be able to find decent employment after their stint in the forces.

Furthermore, not providing pension to the recruits is contrary to the schemes of other countries, after which Agnipath has been modelled. Also, the life insurance cover, as envisaged under the scheme, is less than that of a regular soldier.

The central government’s arguments

According to the government, the scheme was enacted taking into account the border situation and incessant threats made by hostile neighbouring nations. The government also argued that Indian terrain includes mountain ranges, swampy marshes, jungles, deserts, riverine areas, glaciated regions, as well as isolated island territories. In light of this, the government felt the need to establish a more youthful, agile, and physically fit armed force.

The Centre contended that the average age of a soldier was 32 years, as opposed to the global average of 26 years. The government sought to align with the global average by having a force of young jawans, sailors, and airmen between the age of 18-25, who would be employed as   Agniveers, and supervised by the experienced regular cadre. The Centre also contended that the scheme was introduced after years of deliberation and studies.

Why did Delhi HC uphold the scheme?

The HC noted that the Agnipath scheme is a policy decision and courts cannot interfere with the government’s policymaking, unless it is discriminatory or in violation of the constitution and other laws. The judgment said: “The scope for judicial interference is constrained when the scheme or policy decision pertains to national security.”

The court said that policy decisions of the government, especially with regard to national security, are usually taken after careful consideration of the socio-political scenario of the country as well as that of the border countries.  “The courts cannot and should not delve into the appropriateness of such policy decisions and, thus endanger one of the most important aspects of the basic structure doctrine, i.e., the principle of separation of powers,” the HC reasoned.

As for those who had participated in the recruitment process of the army and were shortlisted but not  appointed because of the scheme, the court said, “Individuals who were merely waiting to be issued an appointment letter cannot claim to have a vested right to gain employment.”  According to the court, merely because the candidates completed the recruitment process under the old scheme, they could not seek appointment in the armed forces as a matter of right.

“We can conclusively state that this scheme was made in the national interest, to ensure that the armed forces are better equipped. Due to this, this court finds that the petitioners have no right to claim that recruitment under the earlier notifications needs to be completed.”

The Supreme Court chose not to delve deeper into the issue and agreed with the HC's order.