As women officers made history by leading contingents of the three services at the 66th Republic Day parade along Rajpath on Monday, an appeal filed by the government against giving permanent commission to them in the Army lies pending and half-forgotten in the Supreme Court.
For almost five years, this appeal on behalf of the Army against a Delhi High Court judgment of March 12, 2010 has travelled through various Benches of the apex court without reaching finality.
Filed in the Supreme Court on July 6, 2010, the appeal sought a stay of the High Court decision which observed that women officers “deserve better from the government.”
The High Court had rejected the government’s contention that permanent commission could only be allowed prospectively. “If male officers can be granted permanent commission, there is no reason why equally capable women officers can’t,” the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.C. Garg had reasoned.
Women are inducted into the Army as officers under Short Service Commission for a maximum period of 14 years, whereas their male counterparts are eligible to receive permanent commission after five years.
The judgment came on a batch of petitions filed in 2003 by advocate Babita Puniya and several women officers to stop “discrimination against women Army officers, who are given only Short Service Commission for periods extendable up to 10 years.”
Due to their limited service span, the women officers are not eligible for pension, which requires a minimum 20 years of service. “Their release comes at a juncture when they are still in their mid-thirties and not trained for any other job,” the PIL pleas had argued.
In the Supreme Court, the Army’s affidavit in September 2012 said women officers might not live up to the role models that jawans, mostly from rustic backgrounds, want their officers to be in combat situations. “War has no runners-up, hence the need for an efficient war machine that will ensure victory,” it said. “The interface between the leader and the led must be without any reserve or preconceived notions, especially in battle conditions where jawans repose full faith in decisions/orders of the leader who is their role model and are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty,” the affidavit said.
The possibility of becoming prisoners of war, frontline trauma and combat hazards were cited in the affidavit. “The combat role of woman officers must be excluded not only for the present but as a matter of policy for all times,” the affidavit said.
Besides, it said: “There is an ever growing demand for spouse/choice postings, which is adversely impacting the management of officers to the detriment of male officers.” The women officers hit back in a counter affidavit, saying there was no separate Charter of Duties for women officers. It said the Army’s claim that “beyond 14 years there is a probability of women officers being exposed to the hostile environment where there is a grave danger of them coming in contact with the enemy smacks of gender discrimination.”
“The case is still pending in the Supreme Court,” said advocate Harish Pandey, who represents the women officers in the Supreme Court.
For almost five years, this appeal on behalf of the Army against a Delhi High Court judgment of March 12, 2010 has travelled through various Benches of the apex court without reaching finality.
Filed in the Supreme Court on July 6, 2010, the appeal sought a stay of the High Court decision which observed that women officers “deserve better from the government.”
The High Court had rejected the government’s contention that permanent commission could only be allowed prospectively. “If male officers can be granted permanent commission, there is no reason why equally capable women officers can’t,” the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.C. Garg had reasoned.
Women are inducted into the Army as officers under Short Service Commission for a maximum period of 14 years, whereas their male counterparts are eligible to receive permanent commission after five years.
The judgment came on a batch of petitions filed in 2003 by advocate Babita Puniya and several women officers to stop “discrimination against women Army officers, who are given only Short Service Commission for periods extendable up to 10 years.”
Due to their limited service span, the women officers are not eligible for pension, which requires a minimum 20 years of service. “Their release comes at a juncture when they are still in their mid-thirties and not trained for any other job,” the PIL pleas had argued.
In the Supreme Court, the Army’s affidavit in September 2012 said women officers might not live up to the role models that jawans, mostly from rustic backgrounds, want their officers to be in combat situations. “War has no runners-up, hence the need for an efficient war machine that will ensure victory,” it said. “The interface between the leader and the led must be without any reserve or preconceived notions, especially in battle conditions where jawans repose full faith in decisions/orders of the leader who is their role model and are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty,” the affidavit said.
The possibility of becoming prisoners of war, frontline trauma and combat hazards were cited in the affidavit. “The combat role of woman officers must be excluded not only for the present but as a matter of policy for all times,” the affidavit said.
Besides, it said: “There is an ever growing demand for spouse/choice postings, which is adversely impacting the management of officers to the detriment of male officers.” The women officers hit back in a counter affidavit, saying there was no separate Charter of Duties for women officers. It said the Army’s claim that “beyond 14 years there is a probability of women officers being exposed to the hostile environment where there is a grave danger of them coming in contact with the enemy smacks of gender discrimination.”
“The case is still pending in the Supreme Court,” said advocate Harish Pandey, who represents the women officers in the Supreme Court.
Source - The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment