In a world created “by men for men,” adjustments in thought and letter are necessary to build an egalitarian society, the Supreme Court said Thursday, holding that the Army’s evaluation criteria for granting permanent commission to women Short-duty officers systematically discriminated against them. .
By allowing the plea of a group of female short-duty officers seeking a permanent commission, a bench of judges DY Chandrachud and MR Shah concluded that the Army’s evaluation pattern would, in effect, lead to women being excluded from the commission. permanent “for reasons beyond their control.”
“… We consider that the evaluation criteria established by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners” and “disproportionately affects women,” said the magistrate.
The high court, in a landmark ruling (Secretary of the Defense Ministry against Babita Puniya) in February 2020, had directed the government to ensure that female short-duty officers receive a permanent commission in the Army, including command posts.
Those who were not awarded in the selection process that followed had approached the highest court, pointing out flaws in the criteria adopted by the Army.
Maintaining its complaint on Thursday, the Supreme Court said that “the administrative requirement imposed by the Army … to compare these officers with the lesser officers in the corresponding male group is … arbitrary and irrational and will not be enforced. … ”.
“This disproportionate impact is attributable to structural discrimination against women,” the court said, adding that the methodology adopted for the evaluation of their confidential annual reports and the application of “… rigorous medical standards late in their careers … it impacts them disproportionately compared to their male counterparts ”.
The “indirect and systemic discrimination …”, he added, “has caused economic and psychological damage and an affront to his dignity.”
As for medical criteria, the court said it should only be seen if his fitness levels in his fifth or tenth year of service meet the required standards. He declared that those rejected for medical reasons will be reconsidered within one month and that the orders for the granting of the permanent commission will be issued within two months.
Leading a review of the evaluation method of the annual reports for future batches, the tribunal held that the evaluation process “has clearly ignored that the wording of its IACs was fundamentally influenced by the circumstance that at the relevant time there was no PC option for women “.
Emphasizing that a superficial sense of equality is not the goal, Judge Chandrachud, writing for the court, said: “We must recognize here that the structures of our society have been created by men and for men. As a result, certain structures that may seem the ‘norm’ and may appear 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 providing for equal opportunities in public employment and gender equality. Since then, we have continually strived to achieve the guarantee of equality enshrined in our Constitution. A facially equal application of laws to unequal parties is a sham, when the law is structured to cater to a male point of view.
“Currently, adjustments, both in thought and in writing, are necessary to rebuild the structures of an egalitarian society. However, these adjustments and amendments are not concessions that are given to a group of people, but are the errors that are repaired to erase years of suppression of opportunities that should have been granted to women. It is not enough to proudly claim that female officers can serve the nation in the Armed Forces, when the true picture of their conditions of service tells a different story. A superficial sense of equality is not in the true spirit of the Constitution and tries to make equality only symbolic ”.
The court said that “in issuing the decision in Babita Puniya …” it was “aware of the insidious impact on generations of women who must have given up their dreams of serving in the Armed Forces due to the gender obstacle in their aspirations, and of women who should have opted out of an extension of their SSC terms for similar reasons.
“We must not forget that women officers who have remained in the service are those who have the tenacity to maintain themselves and meet the exacting standards of performance that the Indian Army has made its citizens proud of. It is also important that we keep in mind that a career in the Army comes with a serious set of trials and tribulations of transferable service with positions in difficult terrain, even in peacetime. This becomes infinitely more difficult when society relegates the functions of housework, care and childcare exclusively to the shoulders of women. The WSSCOs before us are not just women who have dedicated their lives to Army service, but women who have persevered in difficult conditions while trudging through lengthy litigation to take advantage of simpler equality with their male counterparts. They do not go to court looking for charity or favors. They implore us for the restoration of their dignity, when even the harsh instructions of the Court in Babita Puniya (supra) have not leaked into a basic assessment of not subjecting the unequal to supposedly ‘neutral parameters,’ “added Judge Chandrachud.
.
