In the realm of empaneling Army officers, the Supreme Court of New Delhi, discerning a dissonance in the process, has mandated the Centre to elucidate the procedural disparities between male and female officers. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, constituting the bench, has directed Attorney General R Venkataramani to submit an affidavit clarifying the stance of the central government.
This directive materialized in response to the contentions raised by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing female Army officers. Ahmadi alleged discriminatory practices in the empanelment proceedings concerning women officers. Citing a previous court order from November 3 of the preceding year, he asserted that all women officers scrutinized by the special selection board 3B (for elevation to the rank of colonel) ought to be considered, excluding those already empaneled.
Ahmadi contended that considering other empaneled officers would transgress the court’s directives. In response, Venkataramani posited that empanelment hinges on comparative merit among officers of the same cohort. He referenced a policy document from the Union government, emphasizing that the status quo of empaneled officers should remain undisturbed.
Nevertheless, Ahmadi challenged this assertion, arguing that a parallel assessment was not conducted for the empanelment of male officers. He contended that male officers under consideration were not juxtaposed with the batch of already empaneled officers, deeming it discriminatory towards their female counterparts.
Taking cognizance of these arguments, the bench instructed the Attorney General to file an affidavit, scheduling the matter for a hearing on March 11. The apex court, in a previous pronouncement, had criticized the Army’s arbitrary denial of empanelment as colonels for women officers and directed the authorities to reconvene the special selection board promptly for their promotions.
The court deplored the systemic attempts to curtail the rightful entitlements of women officers, who had been granted permanent commission in the Indian Army. The bone of contention revolved around the non-empanelment of these officers for promotion to the coveted rank of colonel by selection.
Highlighting the evaluation criteria for granting permanent commission (PC) to women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers as discriminatory, the top court underscored the economic and psychological harm inflicted on these officers. The court deemed the benchmarking of women SSC officers with the least meritorious officers in the corresponding male cohort, as mandated by the Army, as arbitrary and irrational.
In a groundbreaking verdict on February 17, 2020, the apex court had mandated the grant of permanent commission to women officers, rejecting the Center’s arguments based on “physiological limitations” rooted in gender stereotypes. The court directed the consideration of all serving SSC women officers for permanent commission within three months, regardless of their years of service.
Subsequently, in another significant verdict on March 17, 2020, the top court paved the way for permanent commission to women officers in the Indian Navy. It emphasized the importance of a level playing field to overcome historical discriminations and provide equal opportunities for women.