Army’s criteria go against women: Supreme Court

The court said the women officers to be considered will have to achieve the 60% merit cut-off, fulfil the medical criteria and qualify the vigilance and disciplinary clearance.

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down hard on what it called “male for male” structures in the army that resulted in several deserving women short-service commission officers from being considered for permanent commission, holding that such systems were an affront to human dignity and should change for future batches.

The court had in February last year held in favour of women being eligible for permanent commission in the army’s non-combat streams. (PTI Photo)

Dealing a blow to the army selection board decision of November by which only 277 of 615 eligible women short-service commission officers (WSSCOs) were granted permanent commission, the bench allowed the remaining officers who lost out on the opportunity to get a second chance. The court said the women officers to be considered will have to achieve the 60% merit cut-off, fulfil the medical criteria and qualify the vigilance and disciplinary clearance.

“The pattern of evaluation, by excluding subsequent achievements of the petitioners and failing to account for the inherent patterns of discrimination that were produced as a consequence of casual grading and skewed incentive structures, has resulted in indirect and systemic discrimination. This discrimination has caused an economic and psychological harm and an affront to their dignity,” a bench of justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said.

“We must recognise here that the structures of our society have been created by males and for males. As a result, certain structures that may seem to be the ‘norm’... are a reflection of the insidious patriarchal system,” the bench said, attacking the criteria of benchmarking women officers against their male counterparts as indirectly discriminatory.

The court had in February last year held in favour of women being eligible for permanent commission in the army’s non-combat streams. As per a list supplied by the army to the court, only 422 of 615 officers fulfilled the merit and discipline criteria. As per the SC judgment, barring the 277 who got selected and 57 who opted out of permanent commission, nearly 280 women officers would have a fresh chance to be considered. This includes 88 officers whose results were withheld.

In all, 86 women officers approached the court claiming that the selection board formed by the army pursuant to the court order was a rejection board that benchmarked women against men for consideration of annual confidential reports. Most of the women who were now aged 40-50 were required to show top medical fitness at the time of the fifth and tenth year of service when their male counterparts were considered.

On the merit criteria, the court said, “Some of the finest women officers who have served the Indian Army and brought distinction by their performance and achievements have been excluded by refusing to consider their achievements on the specious ground that these were after the 5th/10th year of service.” It noted a few names of officers who received presidential honours and excelled in sporting events but not granted permanent commission.

In its 137-page judgment, the court was profuse in its praise for the women officers who showed the tenacity of fighting a protracted legal battle despite hardships of serving in the army and gender stereotypes.

The court noted with anguish that “such lack of consideration given to the recent performance of WSSCOs for grant of PC (permanent commission) is a disservice not just to these officers who have served the nation, but also to the Indian Army, which on one hand salutes these officers by awarding them honours and decorations, and on the other hand, fails to assess the true value of these honours when it matters the most — to be treated on an equal footing as male officers who are granted PC.”

The army had supported such benchmarking by citing previous internal orders providing for grant of 250 permanent commissions in a year provided that the officers met the 60% cut-off grade. The court directed the army to revise its criteria for evaluation of ACRs and cut-offs for grant of permanent commissions to future batches.

Justice Chandrachud, writing the judgment, observed: “A superficial sense of equality is not in the true spirit of the Constitution and attempts to make equality only symbolic… It is not enough to proudly state that women officers are allowed to serve the nation in the armed forces, when the true picture of their service conditions tells a different story.”