The Supreme Court of India recently denounced gender discrimination, ruling against the termination of former military nurse Lt Selina John due to marriage. The court ordered the Centre to pay Rs.60 lakh in compensation, declaring the 1977 Army rule unconstitutional. The decision sets a powerful precedent against workplace gender bias, emphasizing principles of equality and fair treatment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On 21st February, the Supreme Court of India recently denounced gender discrimination, declaring the termination of employment based on marriage as a “coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality.” The court directed the Centre to pay a substantial compensation of Rs. 60 lakh to a former military nurse, highlighting the unjust termination under a now-defunct Army order.
Former Lt Selina John, a permanent commissioned officer in the Military Nursing Service (MNS), faced termination in August 1988, citing her marriage in April that year and a low grade in the annual confidential report (ACR). The termination order was issued under the 1977 Army instruction–
“Terms and conditions of service for the grant of permanent commissions in the Military Nursing Service,”
which was later withdrawn in 1995.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand High Court Raises Concern Over Misuse of Section 498A IPC
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, delivered the directive on February 14 while hearing John’s case. The court firmly rejected the patriarchal rule that led to her termination, emphasizing that such actions undermine human dignity, the right to non-discrimination, and fair treatment.
The bench stated-
“Acceptance of such patriarchal rule undermines human dignity, right to non-discrimination and fair treatment.”
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) overturned John’s release order in March 2016, directing her reinstatement with back wages. In response, the Centre challenged the decision in the Supreme Court in August of the same year.
ALSO READ: Mumbai Court Convicts Transgender Person for Kidnapping and Murdering Infant
Dismissing the Centre’s appeal, the Supreme Court maintained that releasing or discharging an employee based on marriage is manifestly arbitrary and constitutes gender discrimination. The court cited previous judgments, asserting that no law or regulation can permit gender bias. Rules considering marriage of women employees as a ground for disentitlement were deemed unconstitutional.
Acknowledging John’s subsequent employment with a private organization, the court modified the AFT order and granted her full and final settlement by ordering the Centre to compensate her with Rs.60 lakh. The bench directed the Union government/Army to pay the compensation within eight weeks. Failure to comply within the stipulated period would incur an interest of 12% per annum on the amount from the date of the order to the date of payment.
The 1977 army rule that led to John’s termination allowed “Termination of appointment in MNS” on three grounds – being deemed unfit for service by the medical board, getting married, and misconduct.
John, in her challenge before the AFT, claimed she was not given a fair hearing or a warning regarding her low ACR grading. She alleged that the termination was influenced by personal bias against her due to opposition to her marriage with an army officer by the principal matron under whom she worked.
ALSO READ: Defamation Case| Supreme Court Continues Hearing of Ex-JNU Professor Against ‘The Wire’
This landmark Supreme Court decision not only addresses the specific case of Selina John but also sends a powerful message against gender discrimination in the workplace, reinforcing the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and fair treatment.