Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently deprecated the Indian Navy's failure to grant Permanent Commission to a 2007 batch Short Service Commission woman officer in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, despite earlier observations to that effect in the matter.

Calling on the Naval authorities to grant PC to the petitioner-officer, the Court remarked that its asking of authorities to "consider" granting PC to the petitioner did not mean that the observations could be ignored.

The matter pertained to a woman officer-Seema Chaudhary who, despite about 5 rounds of litigation, had not been granted Permanent Commission by the Navy.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh listed the matter in the first week of July on the request of Senior Advocate Dr R Balasubramanian to seek instructions from the respondent-authorities.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rekha Palli, for petitioner, contended that the Navy takes men on permanent commission directly, but women can come only through short commission. She further highlighted that there are very few women JAG officers in the Navy and as of date, none has been granted PC.

After perusing the service record of the petitioner and the Board proceedings for the grant of PC, the bench questioned the Naval authorities as to why the petitioner had not been granted PC even though she was found fit in all aspects.

In response, Dr Bala pointed out that 3 of petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) contained adverse remarks, which could not be ignored. However, Justice Kant noted that the subject ACRs pertained to the years 2016-2017 to 2018-19 and the same were overruled by the reviewing authority.

Expressing that the concerned authority needs to "shed its ego", the judge said, “Enough is enough...We will give you one week to take her in for the permanent commission."

Justice Kant further raised eyebrows on the mindset of male officer(s) who wrote the petitioner's ACRs, noting that while she scored great marks in all aspects, a male officer just sat over all her hard work and decided she was not fit for Permanent Commission.

Insofar as a bench led by former CJI Dr DY Chandrachud asked the Navy in 2024 to consider the petitioner-officer's case afresh after she was denied PC, Justice Kant told Dr Bala,

“The 2024 judgement has attained finality and clear cut directions were issued to the Naval authorities. It cannot be at the whims and fancies of the officers. Ask them not to make this an ego issue and grant her permanent commission."

Background

The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Navy as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Judge Advocate Generals' Branch on 6 August 2007. She was promoted on 6 August 2009 as a Lieutenant and, thereafter, on 6 August 2012 as a Lieutenant Commander. During the course of her service, she was granted an extension in November 2016 for a period of two years and, thereafter, for an equivalent duration in August 2018.

On 5 August 2020, the petitioner was informed that she would stand released from service on 5 August 2021.

On 17 March 2020, the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Union of India v. Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja, holding that all SSC officers in the education, law and logistics cadres in service be considered for the grant of PCs.

The petitioner, who was one of the officers before the Court in Annie Nagaraja's case, was initially not considered for the grant of PC in terms of a policy letter dated 26 September 2008, which stipulated that while women SSCOs would be considered for grant of PC in stipulated branches (JAG, Education and Naval Architecture), the letter would have prospective effect.

However, after the said policy letter was quashed in Annie Nagaraja, the petitioner's case was considered in terms of the judgment. When she was still denied PC, she again approached the Supreme Court.

While deciding her review petition in 2024, the top Court ordered that "in the peculiar facts and circumstances", the case of the petitioner for the grant of PC be considered afresh by reconvening a Selection Board. "The Selection Board shall consider the case of the petitioner on a stand alone basis since it is common ground that she was the only serving JAG Branch officer of the 2007 batch whose case for the grant of PC was required to be considered", the Court said.

"if a proportional increase in the vacancies is required to be created to accommodate the petitioner, this shall be carried out without creating any precedent for the future. We have issued this direction under Article 142 of the Constitution so as to ensure that while no other officer is displaced, a long standing injustice to the petitioner is duly rectified", the Court further directed.

Alleging contempt of the 2024 decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court with the present case. She claimed that she was being denied PC as a result of a complaint regarding workplace harassment made by her against a male officer. In this regard, she mentioned that a Board of Inquiry found merit in the complaint; yet, she was transferred within a day of making the complaint and the male officer remained stationed at the same office.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Rekha Palli and Devdatt Kamat, AoR Shivendra Singh, Advocates Bhavya Sharma, Punam Singh, Ajay Desai and Prakriti Rastogi (for petitioner); Senior Advocate Dr R Bala, AoR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Vatsal Joshi, Annirudh Sharma Ii, Ishaan Sharma, Sarthak Karol, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Kartikey Aggarwal, Chitvan Singhal, Raman Yadav, Anmol Chandan and Kiran Bala Sahay (for respondents)

Case Title: SEEMA CHAUDHARY Versus GIRIDHAR ARAMANE AND ORS., CONMT.PET.(C) No. 496/2024 in R.P.(C) No. 1036/2023 in C.A. No. 2216/2022