SC Dismisses Plea Filed by Women Army Officers for Permanent Commission

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a plea concerning the Permanent Commission. Women officers who completed 14 years of service filed this plea after the cut-off date stipulated in the February judgment. The Court allowing it would have serious implication. The Permanent Commission should be given to women in the army irrespective of their years of service.

Brief Facts of the Case

The judgment referred to here is a 17 February 2020 judgment that confirmed the Delhi High Court order on the issue of allowing women in command positions. The Apex Court had agreed with the HC that women SSC officers should be held at par with their male counterparts and granted Permanent Commission. The Court also had called out the State for perpetuating gender stereotypes. It was stated that this absolute exclusion of women is against Article 14.

The Court had given Permanent Commission to those women officers who completed 14 years of service on the date of delivery of this judgment. This application has been filed by certain officers who finished 14 years of service after the judgment was pronounced. They pray for their inclusion.

Arguments Made by the Parties

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Lekhi appeared for the women officers. She stated that the judgment in question was pronounced on 17 February, and the appellants completed 14 years of service in March. Since the Government did not start implementing the directions given in the judgment until July, they should get the benefit.

Advocate Colonel Balasubramaniam represented the Ministry of Defence. He argued that this judgement set a threshold that only the women officers who have completed 14 years of service by 17th February 2020 will get a pension. If there is no limitation and it is left open-ended, the implementation will be impossible. He mentioned how every six months a batch is commissioned, and they cannot allow all of them the benefit.

Court’s Observations

The bench observed that if they allow this plea for a batch of officers it will have some serious implications. The February judgment referred to the batch that had completed 14 years before the given date. Allowing this plea would extend the application to every batch that completes 14 years of service.

The bench observed that they need to draw the line despite it being difficult to address these matters are they are about the service of the nation.

Court’s Order

The bench comprising of Justice Chandrachud, Justice KM Joseph, and Justice Indu Malhotra declined to allow this plea. They stated that the application seeks a review of the February judgment, and they are not inclined to do the same.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -