The Supreme Court sharply questioned the Army over arbitrary criteria, asking, “How can there be two criteria based on gender?” The bench criticized the unfair evaluation of women SSC officers compared to their male counterparts for permanent commission.
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the “arbitrariness” in the criteria used for appointing Short Service Commission (SSC) women Army officers seeking permanent commissions, particularly when compared to their male counterparts.
A “criteria appointment” refers to an officer assigned to a command position in a challenging or hostile environment.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh questioned the rationale behind having different standards for male and female officers, especially since both undergo the same training and face similar postings.
The bench inquired,
“How can there be two criteria based on gender? Is there a different format for evaluating SSC women officers and male officers? Is this format different for SSC officers and those in permanent commission?”
Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, representing the 13 officers challenging the denial of permanent commissions, argued that the appellants were disadvantaged by a subjective grading process that took place before they were even eligible for permanent commissions.
Unlike their male counterparts, whose performances were continuously evaluated with permanent commission eligibility in mind, the appellants had their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) frozen in 2019, prior to the court’s 2020 ruling that granted women eligibility for permanent commissions.
Guruswamy highlighted the accomplishments of the officers she represented, noting that Lt. Col. Vanita Padhi was involved in a UN Peacekeeping Mission in Congo, Lt. Col. Chandni Mishra was the first woman pilot in 88 countries to operate a Manoeuvrable Expendable Aerial Target (MEAT), and Lt. Col. Geeta Sharma had served in high-altitude regions such as Ladakh.
Furthermore, she pointed out that Lt. Col. Geeta Sharma held a “Criteria Appointment” as Officer Commanding Communication during ‘Operation Galwan’ in Ladakh, and Lt. Col. Swati Rawat served as Officer Commanding Workshop for ‘Operation Sindoor’ in a counter-insurgency area in Jammu and Kashmir.
However, unlike their male counterparts, the ACRs for these women did not classify their positions as “Criteria Appointments.”
For male officers, such appointments were explicitly categorized as “Criteria Reports,” which are taken into account for granting permanent commissions.
Justice Singh queried whether this suggested that the postings of women officers were irrelevant for permanent commission considerations, to which Guruswamy affirmed, stating, “Yes.”
She further emphasized that despite holding equivalent roles, women officers received ACRs labeled as “Non-Criteria Reports,” lacking any acknowledgment of their positions as “Criteria Appointments” due to their ineligibility for permanent commissions.
Justice Kant remarked that this indicated a disparity in how the postings of male and female officers were regarded in terms of permanent commission eligibility.
Guruswamy replied, Yes, adding that the classification of ACRs affected their chances for permanent commissions, which is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
She argued that, despite being trusted for roles in sensitive areas, women officers were denied permanent commissions. Justice Kant indicated that this issue seemed rooted in “conservative thinking” and “perceptions” held by some senior officers.
Guruswamy also noted that the women officers were not entitled to pensions or medical allowances and highlighted the precarious situation of one commander who had successfully returned planes from Balakot but was asked to leave shortly after.
The bench is considering pleas filed by both serving and retired officers in the Army, with plans to subsequently hear cases from naval officers and those in the Air Force who have similarly been denied permanent commissions.
Earlier, On August 6, the Supreme Court was informed that female and male officers in the Indian Army are considered as two distinct and unequal classes, making it unjust to apply the same criteria and cut-off marks for granting permanent commissions.
The officers referenced the 2020 Supreme Court ruling that mandated the Army to provide permanent commissions to women. In its decision on February 17, 2020, the Court stated that the absolute exclusion of women from all roles except staff assignments in the Army was indefensible, and the blanket non-consideration of women for command positions lacked legal justification.
This ongoing issue seems to stem from “conservative thinking” and “perceptions” of certain senior officers. The Supreme Court, which permitted permanent commissions for women officers in the Army, noted that the total prohibition against women SSC officers obtaining anything but staff positions did not serve the intended purpose of enabling career advancement through permanent commissions.
Following the 2020 ruling, the Court has issued multiple orders regarding the permanent commission for women officers across the Armed Forces, including similar directives for the Navy, Indian Air Force, and Coast Guard.