The Supreme Court warns the Defence Ministry that they would issue a notice of contempt if they do not set their house in order. The Court was hearing applications filed by women officers alleging arbitrariness and discrimination in their promotions.
Table of Contents
Background
In the case of The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020 SC), the Supreme Court granted permanent commission status to women officers. But even when such status was granted many issues arose with respect to discrimination as to granting of benefits at par with their male counterparts.
Such a similar issue arose before the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India (2021 SC) in which a bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he then was in 2021) recognized that even though on the face of it criteria for giving grants to permanent commission to women officers may appear neutral however, it appears discriminatory when looked through the back door. The Court directed the Ministry to hold the promotions and set up a selection board for promotion of women officers in pursuance with the judgements granting them permanent commission.
Also Read: Yeshwanth Shenoy vs State of Kerala | SLP(C) No. 5563/2023
The present applications are filed in the same matter and fresh allegations have been made contending falsification in performance evaluations reports of women officers; insistence on filling vacancies on pro-rata basis; deliberately assigning already promoted women officers to lead contingents that are normally led by officers junior in rank and refusal of the selection board to consider their latest Annual Confidential Reports (ACR).
Submissions by Senior Advocate V. Mohanna appearing on behalf of the petitioners
- The Board while making assessment considers ACRs up to one year before the year in which an officer is considered for promotion. Evidently, their male counterparts who are considered for promotion for the year 2012, their ACRs of 2011 are being considered. The women officers received permanent commission only in 2012, while considering their assessment, their ACRs of 2011 have been freezed. Hence, it is a violation of para 97 of the Nitisha Judgment.
- It is also submitted that the men who underwent the process of promotion were reviewed twice by different boards over a period of one year whereas, as regards the women the same board conducted the review process. This is concerning as it is like the same division bench is deciding an appeal as well.
The Supreme Court order:
The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala directed Advocate Solicitor General Mr. Natraj to rectify the mistakes. The Court opined that attempts are being made to go around the orders of the Court.
On the point of contention raised by the Additional Solicitor General, that for permanent commission there are different policies and for promotion there are different policies, the Court replied that it was their specific order that up-to-date service profile had to be considered, the women officers’ subsequent good work cannot be ignored.
While directing the matter to be listed after two weeks the Court directed to rectify the mistakes and gave last opportunity to ‘set their house in order’ or else they would issue a notice of contempt.
