Case Title: Lt Col Nitisha and others v. Union of India and others
The Indian Army's assessment parameters for granting permanent commissions to female officers were pronounced "arbitrary and unreasonable" by the Supreme Court.
In compliance with the Court's new directives, the Army was ordered to reconsider the petitions of female Short Service Commission officers seeking PC within two months.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Army's evaluation procedures for women officers were "arbitrary and irrational," causing women officers to face "systemic discrimination."
"We must recognize here that the structures of our society have been created by males and for males. As a result, certain structures that may seem to be the "norm" and may appear to be harmless, are a reflection of the insidious patriarchal system. At the time of Independence, our Constitution sought to achieve a transformation in our society by envisaging equal opportunity in public employment and gender equality. Since then, we have continuously endeavoured to achieve the guarantee of equality enshrined in our Constitution. A facially equal application of laws to unequal parties is a farce when the law is structured to cater to a male standpoint...The superficial face of Equality does not stand true to the principles enshrined in the Constitution", the Court noted in the 137-page judgment.
A Supreme Court division bench comprised of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah heard a slew of petitions from female Army personnel seeking permanent commissions and other privileges (Lt Col Nitisha and others vs Union of India and others and connected cases).
The decision came in a series of lawsuits filed by female officers challenging the rejection of their applications for permanent commission in the Indian Army. They claimed that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's judgement in the Babita Puniya case, the Army refused them permanent commission by using an arbitrary criterion for medical fitness and not examining their qualifications beyond the fifth or tenth year of service.
The court along with issuing directions concluded that
"...we are of the view that the evaluation criteria set by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners. The pattern of evaluation deployed by the Army, to implement the decision in Babita Puniya (supra) disproportionately affects women. This disproportionate impact is attributable to the structural discrimination against women, by dint of which the facially neutral criteria of selective ACR evaluation and fulfilling the medical criteria to be in SHAPE-1 at a belated stage, to secure PC disproportionately impacts them vis-à-vis their male counterparts. The pattern of evaluation, by excluding subsequent achievements of the petitioners and failing to account for the inherent patterns of discrimination that were produced as a consequence of casual grading and skewed incentive structures, has resulted in indirect and systemic discrimination. This discrimination has caused economic and psychological harm and an affront to their dignity."