New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, flagged the evaluation system adopted by the armed forces for women officers, observing that the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) to them was due to flaws and a discriminatory approach in the way their performance was assessed.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of women officers were often assessed casually, undermining their chances of securing PC.
“ACRs of appellants were written with presumption that they will not undergo career progression. Adversely affected overall merit,” the bench noted as per Live Law.
“Model was rational, non-discriminatory and implemented as one time measure. Failure of respondents to disclose evaluation criteria etc. has adversely impacted officers,” the bench futher said.
Women officers have been fighting a prolonged legal battle challenging the criteria used to evaluate them, arguing that it placed them at a disadvantage compared to their male counterparts. The Centre had denied allegations of bias during earlier hearings.
Following its 2022 approval, women officers are now being inducted through the National Defence Academy, and those completing training will be granted PC directly, the Centre submitted.
The bench led by CJI Kant was informed earlier by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that structural changes had already been initiated to address gender disparities in the forces.
The Court, however, remained critical of the evaluation process. During hearings, it questioned why women and men were assessed differently despite undergoing the same training and assignments, TOI reported.
“How can there be two criteria based on gender? Is there a different format for evaluating Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers and male officers? Is this format different for SSC officers and those in permanent commission?” the bench had asked.
Appearing for the 13 women officers, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that their ACRs were graded casually and, in some cases, frozen before they became eligible for PC in 2020. In contrast, male officers continued to be assessed with PC in mind.
She referred to the service records of officers such as Lt Col Vanita Padhi, Lt Col Chandni Mishra and Lt Col Geeta Sharma, who had served in United Nations missions, high-altitude areas and counter-insurgency operations. Despite holding key operational roles, including ‘criteria appointments’ in difficult areas, their contributions were not fully recognised in their evaluation reports, unlike similar postings held by male officers.
Such differential treatment could violate Constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15, and may reflect entrenched biases within the system, the Court warned. Guruswamy also submitted that several women officers were denied pension and medical benefits proportionate to their service conditions.
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment, which had directed the Army to grant PC to women officers and held that excluding them from command roles was unjustified and hindered career progression.
The court has passed multiple orders since then, expanding the scope of PC for women across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.
The matter had also involved submissions from serving and retired officers, as the court examined similar concerns across different branches of the armed forces.
