CASE CITATION: AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 375DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17th March, 2020APPELLANTS: Union of India & Ors.RESPONDENTS: Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja & Ors.NAME OF THE COURT: Supreme Court of India BENCH: Honorable Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Honorable Justice Ajay Rastogi |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Union of India v. Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja was a landmark case in the history of the Supreme Court of India that dealt with discrimination based on the gender of the officers within the Navy of India. In this landmark case, there were six writ petitions that 17 women officers filed in the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
In this case, the petitioner requested the Permanent Commission (PCs) in the Indian Navy. This action was brought by the administering in the case of “Babita Puniya v. Union of India”. In this case, the court awards the women officers changeless commissions in the Indian Armed Force and Indian Naval Force. The Indian Army didn’t accept this ruling of the court and challenged the ruling of the court. In this case, the seventeenth women were involved including six logistics officers, nine education officers, and two ATC officers. They contended that they served the Indian Navy for about fourteen years but they were released from their duties and the Navy said that the women officers are not qualified for permanent appointments.
In the policy letter of the year 2008, it was ordered by the Ministry of Defence that the women officers would be given permanent commissions in some of the areas of the armed forces. The letter stated that the women who joined the army after the issuance of this letter would be eligible for the policy’s potential application. In the case of Lt. Annie, the court held that those women who were in the armed services on the Short Service Commission as of September 26, 2008, were not eligible for release till the court determined about the permanent commissions.
The second plea was filed by the Priya Khurana with the Armed Forces Tribunal for the appointment of the permanent commissions. She argued that the fundamental rights of the women were infringed by not applying the rules of distribution of permanent commissions equally. The fundamental rights of the women i.e., the Right to Equality were violated due to this rule of the Army. Similar to the Delhi High Court, the AFT issued an order indicating that women officials classified as SSC would continue to serve in their regular capacities until the court rendered a definitive ruling. Due to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lt. Annie, the women officers were granted permanent commissions. In 2020, a special leave petition (SLP) was filed with the Supreme Court challenging this ruling.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
The key issues of the case were:
- The main issue of this case was whether the women officers of the Short Service Commission (SSC) in the Indian Navy should be granted the option of a permanent commission, similar to their male counterparts. The petitioners challenged the discriminatory policies that denied them this opportunity.
- The case questioned whether the exclusion of women from permanent commission positions was discriminatory and violated their right to equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
- It also addressed the broader issue of whether women should be allowed to serve in all combat and operational roles within the Navy, challenging the traditional gender roles and barriers in the armed forces.
CONTENTIONS
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant, Union of India, representing the Indian Navy argued that the policy issued on the 25th September in the year of 2008 which permitted the granting of Permanent Commissions to Short Service Commissioned (SSC) women officers in the Indian Armed Forces, was not intended to be applied retroactively. Hence, it should not apply to women officers already in service before the policy was implemented. The Union of India contended that certain naval branches and cadres were unsuitable for women officers due to operational, practical, and logistical challenges. They argued that the nature of duties in these branches required personnel to be away for long durations and serve on ships, which were not designed to accommodate women officers. They maintained that the terms and conditions of service for SSC officers were clearly defined at the time of their induction and did not include the provision for Permanent Commissions. Therefore, the officers were aware of these terms when they joined. The appellant also expressed concerns about the physical and medical standards required for Permanent Commissions, which might not be met by all SSC women officers seeking them. Finally, the Union of India emphasized that decisions regarding the composition and terms of service in the Armed Forces should be left to the executive, as they involve complex considerations of national security and defense preparedness.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Counsel for the resentful female officers fiercely disagreed with the interpretation. They claim that the Indian Navy published an advertisement in 2002 requesting applications for SSC from both men and women and that the Central Government had already made its intentions clear in the 1999 Notification. Furthermore, it was made very evident in the aforementioned 2002 advertisement that worthy officers would be considered PC. Furthermore, it was argued that the 2008 Notification was illegal because, as originally stated in Section 9 of the Navy Act, the Central Government had exercised its authority under that section and the notification issued in 1999 had lifted the ban on the appointment of women to the Indian Navy. It was therefore contended that the 2008 Notification was incompatible with the 1999 Notification. The Counsels also contended that the female officers had responded to the aforementioned notices and advertisement and had a right to anticipate being considered a PC based on the standards outlined in Regulation 203.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court of India declared that the policy is discriminatory because it prevented women who were serving before 2008 from applying for permanent commission. The Bench ruled that all women serving in the Indian Navy should be eligible for permanent commission. It noted that the statutory restriction on engaging women officers in the Indian Navy was lifted by a 1991 Notification. The Court affirmed that the 2008 policy decision to grant Permanent Commission to SSC women officers in the Armed Forces applied to women officers in the Indian Navy who had joined before the issuance of that notification. The Court directed that all SSC women officers in the Indian Navy who chose to apply for Permanent Commission and met the medical standards should be granted it. Additionally, the Court criticized the exclusion of women from certain categories in granting Permanent Commission as discriminatory and contrary to the equality principles of the Constitution.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The court stated that the policy issued in the year of 2008 was irrational, arbitrary, and discriminatory. The court ruled that if male SSC officers could be granted permanent commissions while performing the same tasks as female SSC officers, there was no justification for denying equally capable women officers the same opportunity. The court also noted that women officers in the Army should be treated the same as women officers in other armed forces, even in the absence of a specific policy, as they are on par with their counterparts. The court emphasized that the pursuit of equality by women is a universal phenomenon, and rather than restricting women’s freedom, empowering them is a more reasonable and socially beneficial approach.
DEFECTS
The Supreme Court decision in the case of the Union of India v. Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja (2020) was widely seen as a progressive step toward gender equality in the armed forces, allowing for permanent commissions to be granted to women officers in the Navy. While the ruling was a significant legal victory, the actual implementation of the court’s orders posed challenges. Integrating women officers into permanent roles required changes in infrastructure, policies, and training procedures, which could be slow and met with resistance within the traditionally male-dominated military structure.
Although the judgment allowed for permanent commissions, it did not explicitly address the inclusion of women in combat roles. This left ambiguity regarding the extent to which women would be integrated into various operational roles and whether they would be allowed to serve in frontline combat positions. The ruling mandated policy changes, but altering deeply ingrained attitudes within the armed forces towards gender roles and the capability of women officers could be a slower and more challenging process. Resistance from certain segments of the military hierarchy might hinder the full realization of the court’s vision for gender equality. The judgment did not extensively address the mechanisms for retention and career progression for women officers. Ensuring that women have equal opportunities for promotions and career advancement remains a critical issue that requires ongoing attention and policy development.
Despite these challenges, the Supreme Court’s decision was a landmark step toward promoting gender equality in the Indian armed forces. It underscored the need for continuous efforts to address implementation issues and create a truly inclusive environment for women in the military.
INFERENCE
Gender parity in the Armed Forces was made possible by this landmark ruling, which upheld the rights of female officers serving in the Indian Navy to equality and nondiscrimination. The ruling would guarantee that women are accorded parity in the armed services and would investigate all legislative and legal obstacles that stand in their way. The Supreme Court has made significant progress towards gender equality with its decision. Women have repeatedly demonstrated that they are equally, if not more, capable in many fields, including the military forces, so it is rather remarkable that it has taken this long for them to receive PC and treatment on par with their male colleagues. In this instance, there was no justification for denying women PCs because they are just as capable of sailing as male officers. The State’s claims on the kinds of occupations women may encounter while on board ships are ludicrous. Such claims highlight how far behind the nation is in terms of gender equality for the state, which is meant to provide equal opportunities and take the required actions to secure this. In a sense, the case has raised and addressed the subject of gender inequality in India. The judgment affirms the value of the women officers who have devoted their lives to serving the country and serves as a major inspiration for young women to follow in their footsteps and serve their country. The Court found in favor of the female officers, and this decision is a significant step towards the empowerment of women.
The sentence’s execution was delayed after the verdict. In addition, the army purchased four more provisions that female officers must fulfill to receive PCs. The Junior Command Course (JCC), SHAPE-1 category demand, Battle Physical Efficiency Test (BPET), and AE (Adequately Exercised) tenure for a minimum of two years are the provisions that were added post-judgment to clear PC. Every test is physical, except the JCC. This was troublesome since it would deprive a significant number of women of PCs, as the majority of those who are waiting for PCs are older than 40. The male officers were not subject to this condition either. Therefore, on March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court ordered the Army to change its selection criterion. However, only 10 arms or services with fixed vacancies currently select women as officers. They cannot join the Special Forces, the Artillery, or the Fighting Arms. Additionally, they do not receive a straight permanent appointment into the armed forces through the individual Service academies upon graduation or the National Defence Academy following their 10+2 year of education. Gender-specific facilities may need to be established before they can serve on Navy ships or submarines. Instead of having limited fixed openings, the armed forces should have an open, non-gender-specific competitive merit at all levels to ensure equal chances for women and to combat gender discrimination.
Author: Saleha Haneef, Integral University, Lucknow