Menu
judge, hammer, judgement

The Secretary, Ministry of Defence V. Babita Puniya and Ors.

Publications

This case Analysis is given by P. Poojitha currently pursuing B.A.LLA(Gen) from the Dr. Ambedkar Global Law Institute, Tirupati.

Citation Appeal No’s: 9367-9369 of 2011

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Bench:  Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and Hemant Gupta.

Date of Judgment: 17 February 2020

Court: Supreme Court of India

Appellant:  The Secretary, Ministry of Defence

Respondents:  Babita Puniya & Ors.

Introduction

         In February 2003, a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) under the Delhi High Court was sought for the permanent commission for women officials enlisted Commission (SSC) in the military compared to their male associates. Generally, Women are facing many more problems regarding employment basis (especially Sports, Government jobs). Gender equality in India has been a fraught topic. Females and third-gender people are always struggling in the patriarchal society. Mainly, gender Stereotypes have always created barriers for the third gender and women in professional spaces and also at the workplaces.

For all the women and the third gender people suffering the gender discrimination from the workplaces, by facing the struggles they got favor from the Supreme Court of India in a landmark Judgment named The Secretary, Ministry of Defence V. Babita Puniya and Ors. Granted the PC (permanent Commission) in 10 non-combat service units at three months and held them to be eligible to hold the commands posts by enervating the existing ceiling. It provides equal opportunity for women in the Indian army with long-term job security; it is a watershed judgment in the history of the Indian Army.

Background Facts

               According to the Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950[1] say’s that prohibited/ineligibility of “females” for the enrolment or employment in the Army except at the Central Government may allow for the first time in 1992, the central government issued a notification that females are eligible to join the certain cadres of the Army like induction in SSC (Short Service Commissions means it was created for dually), Intelligence corps, the Judge Advocate General’s Department, Army Service Corps and nursing military services, etc., Women were engaged in these services to seek parity with the male officers in the obtaining of permanent Commissions.

Now comes to the facts of the case, in 2003, Babita Puniya (advocate) filed a writ petition like (Public Interest Litigation) PIL under the Delhi High Court were looking for the permanent commission for women officials enlisted Commission (SSC) in the military compared to their male associates. So, Most of the women officers (who work in the Army and Air) also filed a writ petition separately. Their petitions were also tagged by the Babita Puniya( Advocate).

Later in the ending months of 2005, the ministry of defense issued a notification regarding the extension of the validity of the appointment scheme for the Indian Army working as Army officers. In 2006, a further notification was released that allowed the SSC women officers to serve for a maximum of 14 years. Later, Leena Gurav filed a writ petition on 16th October 2006; it is to challenge the conditions of service imposed by the circular previously in that year and also seeks permanent commission for women officers. By seeing that in 2007 LT Col Seema Singh also moved to the court for the same matter.

In 2008, the Ministry of Defence issued a circular envisaging that to grant PCs to SSC women in some departments such as nursing military service, Army education corps, and judge advocate general departments and the corresponding branches in the Air and Navy Forces.

On the 15th February 2019 Ministry of Defence issued a circular granting PC’s and SSC women officers in eight arms of services of the Army, in addition to the JAG and AEC which had been opened up in the earlier permanent Commission for women officers will be employed in various staff appointments only.

Issues

  1. Whether women should be granted permanent commission in the Indian Army?
  2. If not, Why not?
  3. Provision for PC in Army for Women Officers.
  4. Why the disparity between the male and female officers?
  5. Whether the 5th February 2019 circular issued by the Ministry of Defence is arbitrary or not?

Arguments

Appellant Arguments

It was argued by the Union of India;

  1. The union of India contended that Section 12[2] and 10 of the Army Act, 1950 gives the power to grant the commission by the president of India. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued from the court.
  2. The Union Government has to contend that the Army faces a huge management challenge that “to manage the Women Officers in soft postings with the required infrastructure, that not involving hazardous duties with the regular posts with the women in the station”.
  3. The Army has to cater to spouse postings, “long absence on account of maternity leave, Child care leave” as a result “the legitimate dues of male officers have to be compromised”.
  4. According to the Article 33[3] Our constitution empowers the parliament to determine the law with the extent to which the rights conferred by part III of the constitution shall be restricted/abrogated in the application with the members of Armed forces so as it is to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and maintain the discipline among them. Hence, the provision for the Army Act is to protect them under Article 33.
  5. It was contended by the Union of India that the scope of Judicial review in the matters of Army and its process was limited by this court in Union of India V. PK Chaudhary[4] that these considerations are not subjected to judicial review.
  6. It was argued that the border areas lack very basic and minimal facilities and the development of women officers in such areas is not advisable because of habitat and hygiene.

Respondents Arguments

  1. It was contended that the Respondents that the Army consider women officers as effective as male counterparts until they complete 14 years.
  2. It is alleged by the Union of India that presence of the women creates a negative impact on unit cohesion. It was argued that women should also be given equal opportunities as men; society has to accept women as equal to male coparceners.
  3. It was argued that for women, to undergo the rigorous training and all mandatory courses which the male officers are undergoing for SSC’s, then males only seek to be eligible for PCs. If women are found eligible, compatible, and deserve to be in a higher position, they can be promoted.
  4. It was contended that Article 33 enables the parliament to limit or abrogate the FRs for the proper discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline and not for discriminatory practices.
  5. It is argued that besides the discriminatory nature of the policy by the union of Government with the respect to the grant of PCs to SSC women officers, it lowers their status to that of a Jawan.

Judgments and Analysis

     In the beginning of the judgment that the egalitarian outlook of a courteous to evident where the court is observed this is a “quest for equality of opportunity for women”. And the appointment of women in the army force has been referred to as a revolutionary process.                                                                                             

 The Supreme Court of India held that women should have equal opportunities and equal rights in a post and equal treatment with men that counterparts commenting on the stereotype mentally and blanket restrictions on the army women services. Moreover, Justice DY Chandrachud it is clear that it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of our Indian Constitution. He said that although Article 33 of our Indian Constitution did allow for the restrictions of Fundamental rights in armed forces. It was decided that a policy decision was taken by the Union of India allowing the women officer’s PCs through the SSC through some conditions. The Court is very attributed the argument of Women having “greater challenge” in meeting the hazards of service owing to their domestic obligations as a strong stereotype assuming that the domestic obligations with only in rest of women. Hence, it is discriminatory.

  • All those women officers who do not appoint on PC shall be allowed to continue in service until 20 years of pensionable service can be achieved, which is only a one-time benefit for the latter.
  • Women who completed the 20 years of service can’t grant PC should retire on the terms of pension.
  • The entire Women officer’s who are eligible and to grant PCs through SSC should be entitled to all the consequential perks that include the pension, promotion, and financial incentives.
  • The order was given by the Delhi High court is affirmed.

Hence, it is held that the necessary steps should be taken for the compliance of the court’s decision within a period of three months.

Conclusion

      Finally, we concludethat the Supreme Court ensures the women’s position in the Indian Army and it also prevails in gender justice of the Army. No doubt it is appreciable and commendable and should be admired by all.  It removed the blanket restrictions imposed on women officers for holding higher rank posts. It is rightly observed by the decision given by the bench headed by Justice Chandrachud that it is an insult to women officers and the Indian Army also when aspersion is cast on women through achievements in the army.

The path of gender equality has certainly been remarkably heralded which shall ensure that women are no longer denied permanent commission or denied command posts and even women officers have the streams. Gender equality in defense services includes the Army, Navy Arm forces.

Women always should be treated equally in society without any gender discrimination.

[1] https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/documents/ARMYACTS190216.pdf

  Section 12 of Army Act, 1950.

[2] https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/documents/ARMYACTS190216.pdf

Section 12 of Army Act, 1950

[3] https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-fiftieth-amendment-act-1984

Article 33 of our Constitution

[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52271519/

 Union of India V. PK Choudhary