The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the Central government that it has to grant permanent commission (PC) to woman Short Service Appointment (SSA) Priya Tyagi officer engaged with the Indian Coast Guard (ICG)..A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that if the government does not grant PC to Tyagi on its own, the Court will be forced to step in and issue directions to do so.Officers like Tyagi cannot be humiliated by denial of permanent commission, the Bench underlined.."Let them consider. If she is absorbed by them themselves, it is fine, otherwise we will pass an order. But we cannot allow officers such as her to be humiliated like this," the Court said..We cannot allow officers such as her to be humiliated like this.Supreme Court.In its 2020 judgment in Babita Punia, the Court had held that women Short Service Commission officers in Army and Navy are entitled to permanent commission on par with their male counterparts.The Court had, in the process, held that the Centre's stance was based on gender stereotypes and societal notions on gender roles that men are physically stronger while women are weak and submissive.However, the Centre has been opposing Tyagi's permanent commission on the ground that Coast Guard operates in a different domain compared to the Army, Navy and Air Force..In April 2024, the top court passed an interim order allowing Tyagi to continue in service as a general duty officer..During the hearing today, advocate Siddhant Sharma, appearing for Tyagi, pointed out that she has served in Coast Guard for 14 years and her commanding officers too had recommended that she be granted PC."She served in the Indian Coast Guard for 14 years. Her commanding officers had recommended that she be favourably considered for permanent absorption. Despite this, their (authorities') stand was that there was no policy. Since 2020, not a single female officer was inducted even under Short Service Appointment," the counsel said.Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, appearing for the Central government, said that the history and peculiarities of Coast Guard have to be taken into account.."The history of the Coast Guard has to be considered. Its infrastructure and ability to accommodate women officers evolved over time. Modern ships have now been acquired and facilities are available. Notwithstanding that, she would otherwise have gone out of service. The new 2026 decision can apply to her if she is eligible. We will find out if she can be accommodated," the AG said.."The issue is that there was no policy. If there is a system of permanent commission for male officers, what can be the reason to deny it to women?" the Court asked."Even for male officers, permanent commission is only for a certain percentage. The Coast Guard cannot be mechanically compared with the Navy, Army or Air Force. Its operational circumstances and infrastructure are different. Over a period of time, facilities were developed so that women officers could work with comfort and ease. This was not an arbitrary denial," the AG replied. "The qualitative difference between the Coast Guard and the Navy cannot mean that women can be deprived completely. Where the infrastructure is available for male officers, what else can be the reason to deny them?" the CJI demanded.The AG said that the matter should not be looked at through the prism of gender issue."Don't look at it only as a gender issue. Infrastructure had to be developed keeping several factors in mind. The Coast Guard has different requirements and demands. The affidavit explains how this evolved over time," the AG maintained. "Why are you not coming forward with the permanent commission offer to her?" the CJI persisted. "We are. There is a policy now," the AG said. "She served from 2009 to 2024, though on short service. She was promoted from Assistant Commandant to Deputy Commandant and her case for absorption was recommended by her superior officers. In these circumstances, why should she not be considered under the enlarged scheme prevalent today?" the CJI asked."We are not denying that. The question is how to accommodate a case which otherwise fell outside the earlier framework," the AG replied..The qualitative difference between the Coast Guard and the Navy cannot mean that women can be deprived completely.Supreme Court.The Court eventually asked the government to consider Tyagi's case based on the new policy and grant PC to her."She is now treated as an eligible SSA officer and she is on the top. So the benefit of paragraph 3 will go to her and she will be considered," the Court said.If the government refuses to consider, the Court will pass an order, the Bench made it clear..Advocates Siddhant Sharma, Prafull Bhardwaj, Vikram Chaudhary and Akshay Malhotra appeared for Tyagi..[Read Live Coverage]
