Authored By: Yadlapalli Yagnyashree
College of Law For Women ,AMS
Facts of the Case:
In May 1992, women were inducted into the Indian Army via the Short Service Commission (SSC) which had a limited tenure of service. In contrast, male officers on SSC were eligible for Permanent Commission (PC), which permits an officer to serve until the statutory retirement age and entitled the officers to work in supervisory positions and/or command appointments. All women officers in all the three wings of the Army were never allowed to do so.
In 2010, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of granting PC to women officers, but the Union Government did not fully comply with the judgement. It provided diverse and spurious responses to justify the discrimination, including the following; women would incur physiological limitations, women had domestic obligations such as marriage, children, etc., and combat units were uniquely “all-male” space and they claimed were unprepared to accept women commanders. The government policy continued to deny women command appointments and only prospectively provided PC (in limited staff appointments). This pattern of denied access to promotion opportunities led a group of women SSC officers to petition the Supreme Court.
Legislative Issue(s):
The primary issues the Supreme Court was considering were:
- Whether the policy denying women SSC officers a Permanent Commission resulted in gender discrimination and a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
- Whether the total exclusion of women from command appointments in the army was constitutionally justified.
- Whether arguments based on social concepts, family responsibilities and physiological characteristics could prevent women from holding the same rights as men and offer them equal access to employment opportunities.
The Holding (Rule of Law):
The Supreme Court gave a clear landmark judgement, ordering, in summary, that:
- The government’s policy of not granting PC to women officers was discriminatory, and contrary to the fundamental right to equality found in Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The government’s blanket prohibition on women holding command appointments was based on gender stereotypes, and was indefensible in law. The Court directed that all women officers be treated the same as male officers, in determining command appointments.
- The Court ordered that all serving women officers who are on Short Service Commission must be merely considered for grant of PC without regard to length of service, if they qualified for eligibility.
Analysis / Reasoning of the Court:
The judgment by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was an unambiguous criticism of the systemic patriarchy in the armed forces. The Court’s logic was clear and unequivocal:
Rejection of Stereotypes: The Court dismissed the Government’s reasoning in terms of “sex stereotypes” and a “deeply patriarchal mindset”, out of hand. Further, it declared that to “cast aspersions on their abilities on the ground of gender was an affront not only to their dignity as women but to the dignity of the members of the Indian Army.”
Constitutional Morality: The Court concluded that the notion of constitutional morality, which was built with justice, equality, and liberty as its core tenets must take precedence over entrenched societal notions. The Court famously stated that the “mindset must change.”
Equality and Dignity: The Judgment identified a direct link between the denial of the opportunity of equal opportunity and the violation of dignity. The Court stated that the army, a structure built by men for men, had to be transformed to accommodate the constitutional guarantees of equality for women.
Marking Past Service: The Court recalled the distinguished service record and the many awards received by women officers in the previous three decades; the Court used their own achievements as conclusive evidence for their capability and commitment and to dismantle any arguments scripted against their ability to deliver.
Conclusion and Impact:
The Supreme Court directed its orders to be implemented within three months, virtually altering the ground for women in the army. It was a milestone case for several significant reasons:
- It broke a major glass ceiling, opening doors for women to achieve leadership and command positions in the military.
- It upheld that the right to equality is not an issue for negotiation, even within the uniquely operational context of the armed forces.
- It established a strong legal precedent against systemic and institutional discrimination, reiterating that traditions and organisational structures must yield to constitutional ideals.
A mere handful of years down the line, this judgment is still a shade of gender justice jurisprudence in India.
