Summary
The Supreme Court directed equal consideration of serving women Short Service Commission officers for Permanent Commissions in the Army’s ten specified streams, regardless of crossing fourteen or twenty years’ service. Gender stereotypes could not justify exclusion, and the blanket restriction to staff appointments was unenforceable. Consideration and specialisation choices were to match male officers’ terms. Pension safeguards and consequential benefits were directed; entry into combat arms remained outside the dispute.
Issues
- Whether longer-serving women SSC officers could be excluded from consideration under the 2019 policy.
- Whether women could be confined categorically to staff appointments.
- What transitional and consequential relief was required.
Provisions considered
- Section 12, Army Act, 1950Read the notified scope of women’s engagement alongside the policy extending Permanent Commission consideration to the ten existing streams. (¶¶ 2, 49, 50, 51)
- Article 33, Constitution of IndiaExplained the legislative basis and duty-and-discipline purpose required for restricting fundamental rights of Armed Forces personnel. (¶¶ 28, 44, 45, 46, 47)
Held
- The policy recognised equality of opportunity in the ten streams already open to women SSC officers. Assumptions about domestic obligations, physiological differences and an all-male environment were constitutionally invalid grounds for denying equal opportunity. The case did not concern opening combat arms to women. (¶¶ 18, 19, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57)
- The unstayed High Court judgment had not been implemented. The resulting passage beyond fourteen or twenty years of service could not justify excluding serving women from Permanent Commission consideration. Prospective operation did not mean restricting the policy to officers newly commissioned after its issue. (¶¶ 50, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66)
- An absolute bar on criteria or command appointments lacked an individualised justification and offended equality. Suitability for a particular appointment remains for the competent authority on service exigencies, performance and organisational requirements; command is not automatic for either sex. The staff-only restrictions were not to be enforced. (¶¶ 67, 68, 69)
- All serving women SSC officers were to receive consideration regardless of length of service, with options and specialisation choices on the same terms as men. Those with over fourteen years who did not opt or were not selected were protected, as a one-time measure, until twenty years’ pensionable service. Those over twenty years not granted Permanent Commission would retire on pension. (¶ 69)
- Women granted Permanent Commissions under the directions were entitled to consequential promotion and financial benefits within the categories specified, including relevant officers in service and petitioners retiring during the proceedings. Compliance was required within three months. (¶¶ 69, 70)
Result
Appeals disposed of accepting the 2019 policy subject to equal-consideration, appointment and pension directions. Staff-only restrictions unenforceable; compliance within three months. No order as to costs.