The Supreme Court granted women officers to challenge the Indian Army’s recent promotion policy. This decision enables them to contest the policy’s mandatory two-year higher course requirement, which they argue hampers their career progression
NEW DELHI: On Monday (15 April): The Supreme Court of India allowed women officers in the Indian Army to legally challenge a newly introduced promotion policy. The policy, which was established last month, pertains to the advancement to the rank of brigadier. The court concluded its involvement in a longstanding application that sought the implementation of gender-neutral standards in promotions, directing attention to a more formal legal setting for any grievances against the new policy.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stated that
Any issues with the Army’s “Future Career Progression Policy for Women Officers” should be addressed through legal channels.
This decision follows the court’s earlier intervention, which led to the formation of the policy on March 29, aimed at guiding the selection of women officers for brigadier by the Selection Board-2 (SB-2).
Supreme Court decisions like the Babita Puniya and Nitisha cases in 2020 and 2021, respectively, have been important in advancing gender equality within the Army. These rulings have addressed and critiqued the traditionally patriarchal structure of the military, advocating for equal treatment of female officers.
During the proceedings, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Center, alongside Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian for the Army, highlighted that significant concessions have already been made to facilitate the promotion of women officers. However, Venkataramani pointed out that continuous demands for further relaxations could not be sustained.
Senior advocate Archana Pathak Dave, representing the women officers, informed the court that the new policy echoed the same flaws highlighted in the Nitisha judgment. The officers’ response affidavit detailed their objections to the March 29 policy, particularly regarding the mandatory two-year higher course requirement. They argued that such courses are typically completed in the 6th or 12th year of service, whereas most officers have served nearly 19 years.
Dave indicated that the officers are interested to file a writ petition challenging the policy. Colonel Sarika Pendalwar, assisting Venkataramani, mentioned to the bench that out of approximately 49,000 army officers, only 150 colonel vacancies are designated for women officers out of a total of 5,995 posts.
The officers’ affidavit asserted that
The policy hinders their future career progression from brigadier to major general, presenting a regressive approach.
The army’s stance, based on “essential eligibility criteria,” requires a minimum of two confidential reports (CR) in the colonel select rank, emphasizing its operational necessity. Additionally, for promotion to brigadier, an officer must have 18 to 24 months of operational command of a unit or battalion.
Venkataramani highlighted to the court that while the concerns raised by women officers apply mainly to the pre-2005 batch, making exceptions for the current petitioners could have significant long-term implications.
