Implement Judgment On Permanent Commission For Women As It Stands Instead Of Seeking Clarifications: Supreme Court To Centre

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the Union of India seeking certain clarifications in the judgment which directed the grant of Permanent Commission for women officers in the armed forces.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah expressed unhappiness at the "fashion" of filing MAs seeking clarification after a judgment is delivered. If there is any grievance with respect to the judgment, the appropriate remedy is to seek its review, the bench added.

"You implement the judgment as it stands. This is an attempt on the part of your client to go around the judgment", Justice Chandrachud told Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh, who was representing the Union.

ASG Balbir Singh replied that MA is filed seeking a "little clarification" to avoid another round of fresh litigation.

"We will not reopen the judgment. We cannot entertain Miscellaneous Applications. You file a review if aggrieved", Justice Chandrachud replied.

"At least the Union of India should not be filing these MAs", Justice Chandrachud added.

The MA was filed with respect to the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on March 25 this year in the case Lt Col Nitisha and others v Union of India and others which struck down the evaluation criteria adopted by the Indian Army to grant permanent commission for women SSC officers as "arbitrary and irrational". The Court held that the evaluation criteria had the effect of diluting the effect of the judgment in the case Babita Punia vs Union of India which declared that women officers are entitled to Permanent Commission in armed forces. In the March 25 judgment, the Supreme Court had directed that all officers other than non-optees officers should be considered for grant of permanent commission as per terms, within 2 months

Today, the bench also refused to entertain few other MAs filed by certain individual parties.

"As judges we are fed up with MAs. Once a judgment is delivered, MAs are filing seeking this clarification, that clarification. This is not the proper practice. You file review", Justice Chandrachud said.

"Once we have delivered a judgment on broad parameters, we cannot examine individual cases. You go to Tribunals for individual grievances. AFTs are capable of interpreting our judgment", the judge told Senior Advocate Hufeza Ahmadi and Meenakshi Arora, who were appearing in MAs filed by individuals.

The bench clarified that it cannot give interim protection to individuals in MAs.

The bench allowed the MAs to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedies before the Armed Forces Tribunals.

Acceding to the request made by the senior lawyers for a direction to consider the matters in a time-bound manner, the bench added in its order that the Tribunal should hear the applications "expeditiously".