Why SC Dismissed Women Army Officers' Plea On Promotion Discrimination

The Indian Army, seen as a symbol of strength and unity, finds itself at a crossroads when it comes to promoting gender equality within its ranks. Recently, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a contempt petition filed by 30 women Army officers, highlighting alleged discrimination in the promotion process. The officers contended that a special selection board, convened in January, violated the court’s order from November 2023, which mandated their independent consideration for promotion, free from the influence of the panel convened earlier that year.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, however, found no breach of the court's order. It deemed the inclusion of previously empanelled officers for benchmarking purposes as essential for assessing inter-se merit, a criterion crucial for the promotion process. 

Background Of The Case

The army's promotion policy, revealed on March 29, 2023, under the title "Future Career Progression Policy for Women Officers," was subjected to scrutiny by nearly 30 women colonels who raised concerns over its implications. On December 4, 2023, the court was apprised of ongoing deliberations aimed at formulating a comprehensive policy for the career progression of women officers. 

The focus was particularly on facilitating their promotion to the esteemed rank of brigadier from colonel. Subsequently, the Indian Army was given until March 31, 2024, to delineate this policy.  These officers, who have been at the forefront of advocating for gender equality within the armed forces, contended that the new policy imposed restrictive conditions that hindered their career progression.

On April 19, the Supreme Court of India also said that women officers should get command posts matching their entitlement. However, the court refused to direct the Indian Army to give them a fixed tenure of nearly two years at these posts, citing the operational requirements. The bench previously headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud passed the order while hearing allegations of discrimination in promotion procedures, particularly regarding the advancement to the rank of brigadier.

Petitioners' Allegations & Government and Army's Response

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, raised concerns regarding the promotion process. He highlighted that out of the 150 vacancies designated for women officers, only 128 were filled, leaving 22 vacancies unattended. Ahmadi suggested that this underutilization of vacancies reflected a systemic bias against women's inclusion in the Army, fueling concerns over gender parity in promotions. The petition emphasized the imperative of adhering to constitutional principles of equality, as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Indian Constitution, and highlighted the violation of these principles through the inclusion of previously empaneled officers in the promotion process, thereby diluting opportunities available to non-empaneled officers.

Attorney-general R Venkataramani and senior advocate R Balasubramanian, representing the government and the Army, respectively, countered the petitioners' allegations. They clarified that the remaining vacancies were reserved for subsequent batches of women officers, spanning from 2006 to 2009. Contrary to the petitioners' claims of discrimination, Venkataramani asserted that there was no bias in the promotion process based on gender. He reaffirmed the Army's commitment to equality and highlighted the fixed cadre strength, which limited the creation of additional vacancies beyond the allocated 150 posts. 

The court, while acknowledging the petitioners' grievances, emphasized the need to maintain fairness across all batches and minimize disruption to previously empanelled officers. It clarified that the November 2023 order aimed to provide equal opportunities without disturbing the existing promotion framework. 

SC's Authorisation To Women Officers 

According to four women officers, the Indian Army does not allocate upgraded units to women officers, and they are forced to work in regular units, which junior officers generally head. A status report submitted by the Indian Army denied the charge and said that three of the applicants were given regular command posts, while the fourth was assigned one on May 1. 

Hindustan Times reported that Justice JB Pardiwala on the SC bench assured the officers, saying, "The Army will not put you into a billet (unit) lower than your entitlement after our order.” The officers, represented by senior advocate V Mohana, said that all of the 225 male officers empanelled have regular posts, while only 32 of the 108 women empanelled officers have been given regular posts commensurate with their rank.

Court's Verdict And Implications

A bench led by CJI Chandrachud acknowledged the introduction of the new policy, stating, “Now that there is a policy in place, the challenge to it must be heard in an appropriate proceeding.” The bench, while refraining from delving into the merits of the policy, highlighted the necessity of adhering to due legal process in addressing grievances.

During previous legal proceedings, Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the government alongside Senior Advocate R Balasubramanian for the Army, shed light on the details of the new policy. He highlighted the notable relaxations provided to female officers and assured that future promotions would follow this forward-looking approach. Venkataramani also stressed that persistent requests for further relaxations were unnecessary, emphasizing the significance of maintaining essential eligibility criteria for promotions, especially considering operational needs.

Colonel Sarika Pendalwar, supporting Venkataramani's stance, disclosed that while the Indian Army had earmarked approximately 150 colonel vacancies for women officers out of a total of around 49,000 officers, some officers viewed the policy as a hindrance to their future career progression, particularly towards the rank of major general.

In contrast, Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave, representing the women officers, raised objections to certain facets of the new policy. Notably, she contended that the policy's mandatory requirement of undertaking higher courses lasting two years posed practical challenges for officers with extensive service records.

Why Promotion Delays a Roadblock in Equality?

A landmark Supreme Court judgment in 2020 aimed to level the playing field, bringing women officers in the Short Service Commission scheme on par with their male counterparts. It was a momentous step forward, lauded as a triumph of gender equality. However, as we delve into the recent incidents, there is a stark disparity between the principles of equality enshrined in the judgment and the realities on the ground. 

Fast forward to 2023, and before the recent verdict, the promises of the Supreme Court judgment seemed to have hit a roadblock. The crux of the issue lies in the alleged discrimination against women officers when it comes to commanding Army units. This presents a stark contrast to their male counterparts, who have been steadily climbing the ranks. Senior Advocate V Mohana succinctly highlighted this concern during the hearing, emphasising that "not a single woman has been given a promotion after 2020. They are all in service."

The Supreme Court's Stance

During a recent courtroom drama in 2023, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made a striking observation. While the court acknowledged its authority to intervene on matters of law, it also emphasized that it cannot, and will not, dictate the intricacies of the Indian Army's operational dynamics.

The case in question raised concerns about alleged gender-based discrimination in the assignment of command roles within Army units. As the gavel struck down the plea, Chief Justice Chandrachud stated, "We cannot run the affairs of the army and how companies are commanded. We can intervene in principles of law, but we surely cannot run the affairs of the Army."

 The message was clear: the Court would not micromanage military operations.

The Case at Hand

The plea before the court alleges discrimination against women officers, particularly in the space of commanding Army units.  At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani presented a compelling argument that the case should be referred to the Armed Forces Tribunal due to the intricate factual nature of the matter. 

The Women Officers' Plight

Imagine a scenario where a woman colonel, holding a position of significant authority, is entrusted with the command of a company of soldiers—a role typically reserved for a major, two ranks her junior. This unprecedented deviation from the norm has ignited a legal firestorm, with profound implications for both the Army's hierarchy and the principles that govern its operations. Echoing these sentiments, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora underscored a stark disparity, arguing, that 'amounted to nothing short of humiliation for the officer.'

A Historical Perspective

It's important to note that the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment marked a watershed moment. It placed women officers who joined the forces under the Short Service Commission scheme on par with their male counterparts. Prior to this landmark ruling, male officers had the option to apply for permanent commission after completing 14 years of service, while female officers had no such choice and were often compelled to retire prematurely.

Broadening Horizons

Beyond the courtroom drama, the need for female representation and equal opportunities within the Indian Army remains a pressing issue. Recent strides have ignited a glimmer of hope, as initiatives to elevate women officers to the prestigious Colonel ranks are gaining momentum.

In an exclusive conversation with Retired Major Nisha Baloria, the resounding voices of strength and resilience echoed through the ranks. Major Baloria articulated a vital message: on the battlefield, men and women in uniform stand shoulder to shoulder as equals. She emphasized, "Women officers, who have made tremendous sacrifices, must not face judgment based on generic biases. They have exhibited unwavering determination, breaking barriers and proving their commitment to defending the nation, just as effectively as their male counterparts."

Moreover, Ms. Baloria highlighted how women in the military are seizing opportunities on international stages, showcasing their prowess and representing the nation with pride. A notable example is their significant presence in prized UN postings, surpassing their male counterparts both in number and percentage.

As Ms. Baloria wisely echoes John Heywood's famous proverbs, let us remember that "Rome was not built in a day." Similarly, achieving gender equality in the armed forces is a journey that requires patience and steadfast commitment. But as the wind of change sweeps through the ranks, it is clear that the horizon is broadening, and the future for women in uniform is brighter than ever before.

The battle for gender equality within the Indian Army rages on. In this unprecedented confluence of law and military tradition, the Supreme Court's stance serves as a reminder that while principles must be upheld, the intricacies of the armed forces command structure are best left in the hands of those who understand it best.  It's a collective endeavour to transform the battlefield and courtroom into arenas where women shine as equals.

Views expressed by the author are their own