New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions filed by 84 Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers challenging the denial of permanent commission (PC) in the Army. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh heard extensive submissions from both the Centre and the petitioners before concluding the proceedings.
Representing the Union government and the Army, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati argued that the policy on the grant of permanent commission was being implemented fairly and in strict compliance with judicial directions. She referred to the court’s rulings in the Babita Puniya case (2020) and the Nitisha case (2021), stating that any shortcomings flagged by the judiciary were subsequently rectified. “No process can satisfy everyone and there will always be heartburn,” Bhati told the bench, adding that elimination was an essential feature of the policy to maintain a young and efficient force.
Justice Kant, however, pointed out that rectification of faults post-Nitisha did not necessarily imply that the Army’s initial policy was correct. Senior advocates Maneka Guruswamy, V Mohana, Abhinav Mukherjee and Rekha Palli represented the officers, who have alleged that despite commendable service—including postings in difficult terrains and participation in key operations such as Galwan, Balakot, and Operation Sindoor—they were overlooked for permanent commission.
The Centre, in its defence, reiterated before the bench that there was no discrimination between men and women in the process. On September 24, it had assured the top court that parameters for PC were uniform across genders. Bhati explained that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), a critical element in the assessment process, were “gender neutral and devoid of discrimination.” She said the ACR’s purpose was to objectively evaluate an officer’s competence, employability and potential, and the methodology applied was identical for all.
Responding to claims that women were disadvantaged due to non-consideration of “criteria appointments” in their ACRs, Bhati maintained that such appointments—typically command roles in hostile zones—were not decisive for PC selection. “There are no marks or distinction of criteria or non-criteria appointments for the PC board. They matter only in promotions to higher ranks such as colonel, brigadier, major general and lieutenant general,” she submitted.
She further clarified that below seven years of service, all confidential reports are classified as non-criteria, and safeguards exist to prevent bias in evaluations. “In the Army, we have been following a very strict regime and there is no question of discrimination, as the selection board does not have the name of the officer before it. We are a professional army and do err sometimes, and AFT and courts have corrected us,” Bhati said.
Highlighting structural challenges, Bhati pointed out the skewed ratio of regular officers to SSC support staff, noting that against the desired ratio of 1:1.1, the numbers had dipped due to declining SSC intake and low in-service selection rates. To address this shortfall, she said, more regular officers had to be recruited.
The bench indicated that it would next take up similar petitions from SSC officers in the Navy, followed by the Air Force and the Coast Guard, before delivering a consolidated judgment.