SC Grants Time To Centre And Army To Resolve Issue Of Rejection Of Permanent Commission Claims Of 72 Women Army Officers

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The Supreme Court on Friday gave the Centre and the Indian Army until October 22 to resolve the issue of granting Permanent Commission to women Short Service Commission officers who have no disciplinary or vigilance clearance issues.
• The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and B. V. Nagarathna was hearing the contempt petition on behalf of 72 female Indian army officers who had petitioned the Court claiming that they had been denied Permanent Commission in violation of the Court's March ruling.

BACKGROUND

• Another bench, led by Justice Chandrachud, ruled in March that all women officers who met the 60% cut-off are eligible for PC, subject to meeting medical criteria and obtaining vigilance and disciplinary clearance.
• According to the petitioners, the results declassified in September this year revealed that they were denied PC despite scoring above 60%, being medically fit, and having vigilance clearance, because of additional criteria such as "discipline, disobedience of orders, lapses in government procurement, forging medical documents, poor work ethics, lack of professionalism, un-officer like conduct, poor performance in courses, and so on."
• On behalf of the petitioners, it was asserted that the 72 petitioners were ruled unsuitable and incapable for PC even after the March judgement, and their claim was dismissed based on the Selection Board's September 2020 assessment, which allegedly found charges against the petitioners on the aforementioned grounds
• According to reports, the Indian Army asked the Supreme Court for clarity on the grant of PC to women SSC officers who purportedly missed this one condition, querying whether the March judgement meant PC had to be granted regardless of whether the criteria were met.
• According to the petitioners' senior counsel, the Supreme Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for Clarification in August.
• When the Special No. 5 Selection Board considered the petitioners, the ASG responded that the records of each of these 72 were examined, and the petitioners were found "unfit" due to "internal discipline of the military as an organisation."
• ASG (additional solicitor general), Sanjay Jain, admitted that, while all of the petitioners received 60 percent marks, the Selection Board itself determined that they were unfit for their conduct due to these factors.

"You cannot have supervening and additional factors over and above the judgment of this court! You wanted it in your clarification application but did not get it when this court dismissed the application", Justice Nagarathna remarked.

What are your views on this issue. Share your views in the comments section below.