The Supreme Court said on Wednesday (August 6, 2025), the women and male officers of the Indian Army have two uneven and separate classes, so they cannot be considered simultaneously to give permanent commission on the basis of equal norms and cut-off marks.
A bench of Justice Suryakant, Justice Ujjl Bhuiyan and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh has started hearing on the petitions of women military officers of the Short Service Commission (SSC), who claimed that they are not being given permanent commission due to discrimination from their male counterparts. The bench is hearing the petitions of the officers who are serving and freed from service.
The Supreme Court said that after the petition of the Army officials batch, it would hear the petitions of the Navy and then Air Force officials who have challenged them not to be given permanent commission. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, Maneka Guruswamy and V. Mohana and other lawyers represented the women officers of SSC in the court and mentioned discrimination.
Ahmadi, appearing on behalf of women officials received in September 2010, said that she was entitled to get vacancies as per the policy letter of 15 January 1991. Ahmadi said, “In December 2020, considering the same selection criteria and permanent commission (PC) on the basis of equal selection criteria and equal cut-offs to two uneven and different classes, ie women officers and male officers in December 2020, is a violation of the principle of equality.”
He said that the selection board meeting was postponed in June 2020 to consider the 2010 batch and finally refused to give permanent commission to 53 persons based on lack of vacancies. Ahmadi said that his vacancies were calculated incorrectly and the calculation was flawed in view of the policy of 15 January 1991. He said that the disclosure of the board operating year or result has nothing to do with the calculation of vacancies for a permanent commission.
Lawyers of other women officers argued that their annual confidential report (ACR) is being graded in a careless manner and they are not being given equal opportunities compared to male counterparts. The bench proposed equal guidelines for giving permanent commission, but said to keep in mind the factors like special training.
The court also asked the officials what should be the basis of evaluation of permanent commission according to him. The Supreme Court is hearing more than 75 petitions challenging to refuse to give them permanent commission on various grounds.
The Supreme Court said that the interim order passed earlier would be implemented, under which the Center was prevented from freeing service till the decisions on the petitions of the officers. On May 9, the court had directed the Center not to free the SSC women military officers who challenged the decision to refuse to give a permanent commission.
The Supreme Court had asked not to reduce their morale in the current situation. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Center, argued that it was an administrative decision based on the policy of keeping the armed forces youth.
Guruswami, who appeared on behalf of Colonel Geeta Sharma, had earlier mentioned the case of Colonel Sofia Qureshi, who was one of the two female officers who informed the media about Operation Sindoor on 7 and 8 May. Women officials have cited the 2020 decision of the court, in which the army was instructed to give them a permanent commission.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment on 17 February 2020, said that except for staff posts in the army, women cannot be supported completely excluding all posts and not considering them in command appointments without any justification cannot make it appropriate to consider them.
Since the 2020 decision, the Supreme Court has passed several orders on the issue of permanent commission to women officials in the armed forces and similar orders were passed in the case of Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.