Supreme Court Asks Army To Frame Policy On Women Officers' Promotion

The Supreme Court on December 4 told the Indian Army to frame a policy regarding the promotion of women officers, who have been granted permanent commission following the judgments of the Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, was hearing a batch of applications filed by women officers who seek promotion from the rank of Lt. Colonel to Brigadier in the Indian Army. The women officers alleged that some of the criteria adopted by the Indian Army are discriminatory in nature.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani informed the bench that deliberations are going on in the Army Headquarters for formulating an appropriate policy on career progression for women officers to facilitate their consideration by No 2 Selection Board.

Taking note of the AG's statement, the bench observed in its order : "We would expect that formulation of the policy should be complete by 31 March 2024. It shall be placed on record on affidavit."

In a landmark judgment delivered in February 2020 in Secretary Ministry of Defense v. Babita Puniya, the Supreme Court held that absolute exclusion of women officers from Permanent Commission in the Army was discriminatory. Next year, in yet another landmark verdict in Lt. Colonel Nitisha and Ors v. Union of India, the Court held that certain criteria adopted by the Army for consideration for Permanent Commission for women officers was based on patriarchal notions and gender stereotypes resulting in discrimination. 

Despite these judgments, several women officers were constrained to knock the doors of the Court seeking promotion. On an earlier occasion, the Court had observed that the Army's approach to women officers' promotion was discriminatory.

Appearing for one of the applicants , Advocate Archana Pathak Dave highlighted key concerns of women officers from the 1992-2006 batches.

The grievance of the applicants was essentially two-fold, firstly with regards to the marking done under 'quantified parameters' and secondly the absence of financial benefits and pay fixation at par with their male counterparts on attaining the same rank in Permanent Commission.

Dissecting the matter further, Dave drew the bench's attention to “S branch letter no. 04502 M/S Policy dated December 23, 2017”, which elaborates on the 'quantification system of selection'. The concerning S.B No.2 allocates 95 out of 100 marks (91 is for Confidential Reports-CRs in recallable profile, 2 marks are for Courses, and 2 for gallantry awards) for quantified parameters and the remaining 5 marks rest upon the board member's assessment.

Within the 91 marks allocated to CRs, a certain kind of 'criteria CRs' constituting 16.5 marks becomes an issue of consideration. Mrs. Dave explained to the bench, “These are special postings, courses that are there and even these commands are just based on the fact that the women officers were never given the PC so they were never even considered for these CRs. All these CRs were given to gentlemen officers because they were to have finally the PC .. so we never had this we don't have this now, so these 16.5 marks even if they consider us for no.2 (SB) we will not have. Next, my lords are the 11 marks, we have this because these are non-criteria CRs, these two CRs you earn when you are a major or a Lt. Col….”

Pointing out the fallacy in the appointment policy, Dave contended, “These officers, especially one of the applicants, she actually commanded those postings which are now given to Colonels so when they say that you don't have those appointments, I had already done that when I was a major..this is the entire fallacy of these upgraded appointments..they (Union of India) say now you have to again do a course for which you will have those CRs adequately exercised CRs, whereas when I was a major I did that…. So, one thing we want is a clear-cut policy of SB 2 which will be applying to these women officers, it has to be special because you can't equate us with the male batches, in fact, our co-ordinate male batches have already been considered way back in 2018, they're all Brigadiers now and they are saying that you have to complete all this otherwise they will have us as agendas but we will never be able to clear that.”

The bench was also informed that the present applicants are yet to be considered under S.B No.2. The Counsel for the applicants further expressed, “My grievance is, till today they have not come out with a policy which will be applied to Us for no.2 (SB). we should be knowing what is the criteria you will be judging us on.”

Referring to the policy of November 23, 2021, for the creation of Special S.B no.3 in light of Lt. Col. Nitisha Judgement, the CJI asked, “They should do a similar exercise for a Special S.B No.2?”, to which Mrs. Dave replied, “Yes, otherwise women will never be able to come to that level to compete, forget about getting over that benchmark.”

On Financial Benefits:

The other issue raised was the disparity in pay for women officers now holding the same rank as their male counterparts despite earning seniority after being promoted to PC.

Dave contended, “It was not our fault that we were considered late …not our fault that this judgement of the Court was not taken in true letter and spirit by the army… I ask myself in service law what do you mean by having a seniority from a back date but you don't have the financial benefits from that date? ……even in pension my lords... It is a continuous wrong which is happening with us!”

The matter was then concluded with the CJI asking the Attorney General Mr R. Venkataramani if the Union of India is considering to have a similar policy for S.B No. 2, he mentioned that “You (Union of India) have to factor in what happened to this class of officers, they are a dying cadre”. The Attorney General along with the Counsel representing the Military Secretary submitted that “There is something in the offing” and that the department is considering a suitable policy for career progression.

Case Details: Union of India v. Lt. CDR. Annie Nagaraja, Executive Officer, Diary No. 23843-2023 connected with Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors MA 2395/2023 in MA 1913/2022 in W.P. (c)no. 1109/2020

Click here to read the order