The Supreme Court on Tuesday found that systemic bias within the Armed Forces has led to denial of permanent commission (PC) to several women officers serving in the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force..A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while granting relief to several such women officers.The Court found that the career evaluations of these officers were based on presumptions that undermined their career progression."The inequality of opportunities has affected their inter se merit. They were categorised as unfit for long term career progression...We find that denial of Permanent Commission was a consequence of systemic discrimination and not finding them fit for career progression. Thus, we invoke Article 142 to render complete justice," the Court held, while examining the concerns of women Army officers. Addressing similar concerns by Navy officers, the Court added,"This presumption (that women officers were unfit for long-term career progression) undermined the assessment of their suitability for such progression once it became available, and thus adversely affected their overall merit in the consideration for Permanent Commission."Similarly, with respect to women Air Force officers, the Court said,"The Service Length Criteria of the applicants, who were never offered an opportunity to be assessed for career progression, ought not to have been considered as indicative of their suitability, nor used to deny them the grant of Permanent Commission.".The Court concluded that such denial of PC to women officers was flawed. It passed a host of directions to ensure that PC earlier granted to some applicants by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) or Section Boards is not disrupted. In some cases, where the women officers had already left service upon the denial of PC, the Court ordered the grant of pension and consequential benefits as a one-time measure by deeming them to have completed 20 years of service. .The case concerned a batch of petitions filed by women officers of the armed forces appointed under the Short Service Commission (SSC), who sought grant of PC in the service.Officers appointed under the SCC serve for a fixed tenure, ordinarily extendable up to 14 years. In the absence of PC, such officers are required to leave service upon completion of their temporary tenure.Several women officers had earlier approached the AFT challenging the denial of PC. The issue thereafter reached the Supreme Court in appeal, with multiple petitions raising similar grievances being heard together.The lead petitions include those filed by officers such as Wing Commander Sucheta Edan and others, who questioned the manner in which the policy governing PC was applied to women officers in the Air Force.The dispute arose from policy measures introduced around 2019 relating to the grant of PC. While the policy enabled consideration of women officers in certain streams, the petitioners contended that its implementation led to the exclusion of a number of officers who had completed the required years of service.Before the Court, the petitioners argued that the denial of PC to women officers was inconsistent with earlier decisions recognising the entitlement of women officers in the Armed Forces to be considered for such commission.The Union government opposed the pleas and defended the existing policy framework, submitting that the grant of PC was governed by service requirements and applicable criteria..The Court passed individual directions for officers of the Army, the Navy and the Indian Air Force..Army officers- Consideration for PC was no longer exclusively for male officers;- PC already granted to SC women officers shall not be disrupted;- As a one time measure, women SSC officers and intervenors before the Court who were relieved from service during court proceedings at any level shall be deemed to have completed substantial service of 20 years and will be entitled to pension, but not the arrears in pay;- However, this does not apply to woman SSC women officers and intervenors who are part of Judge Advocate General (JAG) and Army Education Corps (AEC) cadre..On Navy- The vacancy model adopted by the respondent-authorities to create and distribute vacancies among the officers considered by the Selection Board held in December 2020 was rational, non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary and implemented as a one-time measure following the directions issued by the Court. - The failure of the authorities to disclose the evaluation criteria, vacancy computation methodology and allied policy considerations prior to the conduct of the Selection Board adversely impacted women officers considered.- The promotions granted to SSC officers who have already been granted PC by the Selection Boards convened in December 2020 and December 2022, as well as those granted relief by virtue of the judgment in Manish Kumar and Lieutenant Colonel Manish Kumar Singh, shall not be disturbed. - As a one-time measure, instead of convening a fresh Special Selection Board for reconsideration, directions are issued for grant of promotion to certain categories of officers who were considered for grant of PC by a Selection Board convened in December 2020 and are presently still in service. This is subject to meeting the prescribed medical criteria and obtaining disciplinary and vigilance clearance. The categories are as follows: (a) Short Service Commission women officers who were inducted into the Navy prior to January 2009;(b) Short Service Commission women officers who were inducted into the Navy after January 2009 in branches and cadres excluding Law, Education, and Naval Architecture;(c) Male Short Service Commission officers who were barred from consideration for PC as per their initial terms of service. - The Court also addressed situations where officers belonging to the above categories left service while the case was pending. It said,The applicants and intervenors before us who have been released from service during the financial year 2025, whether before attaining the age of 45.8 years or otherwise, and who would fall within the above categories, shall be deemed to have completed the qualifying service of 20 years and shall be entitled to pension and all consequential benefits. The pension shall be fixed on the basis of completion of 20 years of qualifying service, with effect from January 1, 2025.".Air Force- Applicants before the Court (women officers) were not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the minimum performance criteria introduced in 2019 for the grant of PC before the first Selection Board was set up;- The Court noted that the women-applicants before the Court joined the Air Force in 2007 and were released from service in 2021, after they were considered and denied PC in 2019, 2020 and 2021;- The Court concluded that even though the assessment process which led to the denial of PC to these applicants was arbitrary, it would not be in the interest of operational effectiveness of the Air Force to order their reinstatement or direct that they be reconsidered for PC. However, that alone cannot be a ground to deny all benefits to such officers, it added. - The grant of PC to Short Service Commission women officers, who have already been granted such commission by Selection Boards held in 2019, 2020 and 2021, shall not be disturbed. - As a one-time measure, all SSC officers who were considered for grant of PC in the Selection Boards held in 2019, 2020 and 2021 shall be deemed to have completed qualifying service of 20 years and shall be entitled to pension and all consequential benefits, except arrears of pay;- This benefit shall also extend to those officers who were considered in one or more of the Selection Boards during 2019, 2020 and 2021 but were declared ineligible. The pension shall be fixed on the basis of completion of the deemed qualifying service of 20 years, with effect from November 1, 2025. - The Court also noted that some of the officers before it, who were intervenors, joined in later batches and were not considered for PC in 2023. They continued to be in service on account of interim High Court orders. Their cases arise in a distinct factual context and were not decided on in today's ruling, it clarified. They were given liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law against the outcome of Selection Boards. Their continuation in service shall remain subject to the result of such proceedings. - For all future Selection Boards, the respondents shall issue a general circular prior to the conduct of such boards, setting out the vacancies available in each branch and stream for each batch, the detailed criteria for evaluation, the allocation of marks for each component, and all other relevant information necessary for officers under consideration..Senior Advocates V Mohana, Rekha Palli, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Abhinav Mukherji, and Vibha Makhija and Advocates Pooja Dhar, Sudhanshu S Pandey, Garima Sachdeva, Abhimanue Shrestha and Anshuman Ashok appeared for various appellants. Senior Advocate Huzefa A Ahmadi appeared for some applicants. Additional Solicitor-General of India Aishwarya Bhati represented the government of India and the armed forces. .[Read Judgments].[Live Coverage]
