A bench of Supreme Court Justices began hearing petitions on Wednesday, August 6. These petitions were filed by women officers of the Short Service Commission (SSC). They alleged discrimination in the grant of Permanent Commission compared to their male counterparts.
Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh heard the petitions filed by two batches of officers, those serving and those released from service. Bench will also hear pleas of Naval officers. This will be followed by officers in the Airforce. They have also been dissatisfied by denial of PC.
Senior advocates Huzefa Ahmadi, Menaka Guruswamy, V. Mohana, and other lawyers represented the SSC woman officers.
The stance of the woman officers was clear. They explained that there has been casual grading of their annual confidential reports. They had been discriminated against by not being provided with equal opportunities in comparison to their male counterparts.
“Consideration of two unequal and distinct classes, i.e., women officers and gentlemen officers, together for grant of permanent commission (PC) by Selection Board No. 5 in December 2020 is a violation of principle of equality. Using the same selection criteria and same cut-off is a violation,” Ahmadi said (Representative of SSC women officers) .
Ahmadi submitted the selection board meeting of June 2020 for consideration. The batch of 2010 was postponed. Later, 53 persons were refused Permanent Commission due to a lack of vacancies.
Support from Senior Advocates
These Senior advocates standing for the women officers, argued that Selection Board No. 5 was convened in December 2020 to assess the September 2010 batch. It applied the same vacancy calculations and qualifying standard bars across genders.
This, they claimed, violated the principle of equality. The January 15, 1991 policy mandates that vacancy assessments should rely on the inter se batch strengths. Assessments should be conducted only within the group commissioned in the same year. They should not be done across gender lines or selection board timelines.
Further, counsel maintained that deviations from policy in calculating vacancies caused wrongful denial of PC to 53 women officers. These officers were excluded based on a “lack of vacancies.” They emphasized that the calculation of vacancies should not depend on the year the board met. It should not depend on declassified results either. Instead, it should solely depend on batch-based seniority and strength as recommended.
These hearings follow several landmark judgments. The Supreme Court pushed for gender equity in the armed forces. Moreover, the government has previously argued before the Court that women are not prepared for combat roles. Because of this, they are trained and assessed differently.
The Centre explained this distinction by citing mandatory attachments of male officers to artillery units during induction. Roles that women do not engage in were highlighted. This requires different selection pathways. The current hearings are set to determine if uniform assessment is fair. They will also test if it is constitutionally sound despite structural distinctions.
For all latest updates Follow theviralmail on X, Facebook, and Instagram
