Permanent Commission for women: Army blinks after SC warns it of contempt

Of the 72 women officers, 36 filed contempt petitions in the top court that were taken up for hearing by a bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and AS Bopanna.

The Supreme Court on Friday spared the army of contempt proceedings after the latter changed its position on denying permanent commission to 72 women short service commission officers, agreeing to grant it to all women officers who have qualified on merit and have no disciplinary or vigilance clearance pending against them.

On Friday, the ministry of defence submitted an affidavit stating that out of 36 officers, 21 have since been granted permanent commission upon review and letters in this regard were issued to them on October 29. (Reuters File)

The Supreme Court on Friday spared the army of contempt proceedings after the latter changed its position on denying permanent commission to 72 women short service commission officers, agreeing to grant it to all women officers who have qualified on merit and have no disciplinary or vigilance clearance pending against them.

|#+|

Of the 72 women officers, 36 filed contempt petitions in the top court that were taken up for hearing by a bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and AS Bopanna. These petitions said the Indian Army was in contempt of the apex court’s March 25 order that said all women short service commission officers (WSSCOs) who qualify with 60% merit, are medically fit and have secured disciplinary and vigilance clearance, are to be granted permanent commission. In all, 514 WSSCOs qualified on the basis of the 60% benchmark, of which 442 were given permanent commission; the other 72 were denied this by the selection board that met in September 2020. One officer opted for premature release from service, reducing the number to 71.

On Friday, the ministry of defence submitted an affidavit stating that out of 36 officers, 21 have since been granted permanent commission upon review and letters in this regard were issued to them on October 29. The case of one officer was under consideration , leaving 14. Of this, the affidavit added, three were found to be medically unfit, while there were serious objections against 11 others.

After some prodding from the court, it agreed to grant permanent commission to these 11, and also consider similarly, the case of the 36 others who did not file a contempt petition.

There was no response from the Army on the development.

The women short service commission officers secured their right to permanent commission and command positions in non-combat streams at par with male officers after a prolonged legal battle culminating in the Supreme Court order on February 17, 2020. The women officers again came to the court in September 2020, complaining against the whimsical standards on merit, medical fitness applied by Selection Board to deny them their due. This resulted in the March 25 order.

In June, the Centre moved an application for clarification of the judgment stating that the 72 officers denied permanent commission faced serious issues: discipline, disobedience of orders, forging medical documents, poor work ethic, lack of professionalism, un-officer like conduct, and poor performance in courses. The court refused to entertain this application in August and directed the army to comply with the March judgment.

In Friday’s hearing, the Centre initially said it would grant permanent commission only to 21 of the 36 who filed the contempt petition. It was very clear that it did not want to grant commission to the 11 against whom there were serious objections.

“If service records of the relevant period of these 11 officers is to be taken as the basis, it raises a question on their continuation in the force which is a relevant consideration adopted by the army to deny them permanent commission,” said Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Union government. The 11 officers were medically fit.

The court wished to know if these officers had secured disciplinary and vigilance clearance to which the ASG replied in the affirmative “As of today, they have those clearances, but there are some weak points against them pertaining to the relevant period.”

The court then remarked: “The Army may be supreme in its own authority, but the Constitutional court is supreme in its own jurisdiction. We gave you a long rope and put you on guard that if you go beyond our order (of March), you will invite trouble. We are going to record a finding holding Army guilty of contempt.”

It added: “Our directions are very clear. Do not deny these people on some remarks made at some point in the past.”

ASG Jain along with senior advocate R Balasubramanian appearing for the Indian Army took an hour’s concession from the Court to discuss the issue with top army and government officials.

Returning with instructions in the afternoon, ASG Jain told the Court that the 11 officers shall be granted PC within 10 days and all similarly placed WSSCOs who have not approached the Court in contempt petitions will also be given similar consideration. The Court accepted the stand of the Army and recorded the statement, granting three weeks’ time to consider grant of PC to the remaining officers.

ASG Jain said, “The army officers are keen to see this matter attains finality today. We will consider them with open heart and open mind.” Balasubramanian, who too played a crucial part in convincing the army officers to arrive at a consensus, said, “Army is being thrown apart by this litigation. We want to bring an end to these proceedings.” He further pointed out that the Court should state in the order that in peculiar facts of this case as otherwise, it could open a flood of litigations by male short service commission officers who have been denied permanent commission in the past on similar grounds.

The Court disposed the contempt petitions and directed the Army authorities to deal with the complaints of two WSSCOs denied PC on medical grounds within a month. The accomplishment of these two officers was mentioned in the March judgment as an ode to the services rendered by the women officers in the army. Senior advocate V Mohana appearing for the two officers said that one officer was shown in low medical category at the relevant period due to her pregnancy while the other officer was being penalised for not producing medical documents of the relevant period.

The bench told the Centre, “It is not that she is unfit but that she was pregnant.”

However, the Court reiterated, “By way of abundant caution, it is clarified, those officers who have disciplinary and vigilance clearance as of present will be eligible for grant of PC subject to other conditions mentioned in paragraph 120 of our judgment.”