The Supreme Court of India, in a recent hearing, expressed its astonishment and concern over the Indian Navy’s failure to promote any woman officer who was granted Permanent Commission in 2020. This issue came to light during a hearing of applications filed by six women Navy officers seeking promotion-related reliefs, following the Court’s landmark decision in 2020 to grant them Permanent Commission.
Also read- Supreme Court Intervenes For Cleaner Air: Aims For Better Delhi Winter (lawchakra.in)
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, leading the bench with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, questioned the status of these promotions.
“After our judgement, how many women have been promoted Mr AG? How many women have been promoted in the navy? It can’t be that no single woman was competent,” the CJI inquired. Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, acknowledged that out of those granted Permanent Commission, not a single woman was promoted, which led the bench to express surprise: “We are a little surprised that not a single woman has made it on merit.”
Senior Advocate V. Mohana, representing the six officers, argued that there was “systematic discrimination” in the promotion process. She pointed out that the women were considered for promotion alongside their junior officers, which was factually incorrect. Mohana emphasized,
“There is an India General report prepared for each Selection Board which they should produce,”
and added that the “look year” for the six applicants she represented was 2016. She contended that in the subsequent “look years” of 2018, 2019, and 2020, no “approach paper” was prepared, amounting to systematic discrimination.
The AG sought to differentiate this matter from similar petitions filed by women officers in the Indian Army, stating,
“This is not a case like the army where there are vacancies. There is a ‘look year’ when each officer can be considered.”
He assured the Court that the Centre had no hesitation in producing the reports as the denial was purely on merit, saying,
“You can’t close your eyes to merit. Every selection is preceded by an approach paper. We will produce it and then court will know where they stand.”
For the Navy, Senior Advocate R Balasubramanian acknowledged,
“It is true there is not a single woman officer who got permanent commission who has been promoted. Equally, male officers who were higher in merit have not been considered among their peers.”
The Court, while hearing the case, granted an additional week to the Delhi government to release funds for the remaining corridors of the Rapid Rail project in the National Capital Region. This directive came after Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, representing the Delhi government, informed that the necessary budgetary provisions had been made.
The bench advised the applicants to consider filing a petition before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), as the scope of relief in the current application was limited. CJI Chandrachud stated,
“There are limitations on this court to entertain the application. You can consider filing a petition before the AFT. It is not a case that they have not considered you. Their affidavit states you were considered in 2018, 2019 and 2020.”
The matter, highlighting the ongoing challenges in achieving gender equality in the armed forces, has been adjourned and is scheduled for further hearing on January 2, 2024. This case underscores the need for a more inclusive and equitable approach in the promotion and treatment of women officers in the Indian Navy.
