SC Flags Arbitrary Criteria in Women Officers Appointment

SC Flags Arbitrary Criteria in Women Officers Appointment

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court expressed concern over arbitrary criteria in the appointment process of women Army officers seeking permanent commission. 

What is the Case and Plea by Women Officers?

• Thirteen Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers claimed that their assessment for permanent commission was not conducted on the same grounds as their male counterparts. 
• The petitioners Lieutenant Colonel Vanita Padhi, Lieutenant Colonel Chandni Mishra, and Lieutenant Colonel Geeta Sharma, along with other senior officers argued that the evaluation system effectively weakened their service profiles and diminished their chances of long-term roles in the Army.
• The women officers are represented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who highlighted that the authorities had failed to assess women candidates with the same yardstick applied to men. 
• Advocate Menaka Guruswamy pointed out that before 2020, women were not even eligible for permanent commission. This historical exclusion had a lasting impact because in 2019, their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were frozen, weakening their grading and official records. As a result, many officers were unfairly categorized as less suitable.
• The officers have argued that this discriminatory approach violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, and Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. They stressed that such practices are contrary to the core values of fairness and justice.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Remarks 

• A bench led by Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh highlighted this issue while hearing a plea filed by 13 women officers.
• The court noted that women officers face different parameters compared to men, despite undergoing the same training and postings. 
• The court questioned why criteria for women and men should differ when both serve under equal conditions.
• The bench reminded the Army that women and men enter the Short Service Commission through identical selection processes. Both groups undergo the same physical drills and operational exposure.
• The court emphasized that a dual system of evaluation is not only unfair but also damaging for morale in the forces. Their records do not always carry the same weight as those of men. 
• The court also recalled its own landmark decision of February 2020. In that ruling, the Supreme Court held that limiting women to staff roles was arbitrary and unconstitutional. It directed that women be considered for permanent commission in line with Article 14 of the Constitution.

Arbitrary Criteria in Army Officer Selection

• Arbitrary criteria are rules or benchmarks that lack consistency. They are not rooted in written policy or uniform assessment methods. Instead, they emerge from personal discretion of senior officers or from traditions that do not align with constitutional principles. 
• In this criteria, one officer may be considered for permanent commission based on an operational posting, while another with similar experience may be ignored. 
• The absence of standardized guidelines leads to uncertainty and undermines merit-based progression.
• In the military, the term criteria appointment is often used to describe service in positions that demand a higher level of responsibility. These roles may involve command in challenging terrains, counter-insurgency areas, or specialized operations. 
• A criteria appointment is expected to reflect the capability of an officer to handle leadership duties under stress. The intention behind such appointments is positive, as they provide opportunities to prove skill and resilience.
• When such postings become the main factor for selection into permanent commission, officers without access to them are automatically disadvantaged.

Need for Reform

• Uniform evaluation criteria should implement for all officers, regardless of gender. Assessments should be based on measurable performance indicators such as leadership skills, operational achievements, training completion, and command experience.
• All officers should have equal opportunity to undertake criteria appointments, which are critical for career progression. Women officers should be considered for high-responsibility roles such as field commands, disaster management operations, and specialized missions.
• Transparent and digital record-keeping should necessary to ensure that all postings, achievements, and operational assignments are documented clearly. This measure will reduce errors in grading and prevent deliberate.
• Defense authorities should establish a system for periodic review of promotion policies and evaluation criteria. Reviews must focus on fairness, inclusivity, and alignment with constitutional principles. Initiatives like these were recommended in reports by the Ministry of Defence between 2021 and 2023, which stressed institutional reforms to ensure gender parity.