Gender bias in promotions, Supreme Court raps Ministry of Defence

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, April 7

As women Army officers allege discrimination and unfair treatment in promotions, the Supreme Court has warned the Ministry of Defence of contempt of court action for not considering their overall service profiles as ordered by it while granting them permanent commission in 2020.

Warns of contempt

There has been an attempt to go around our order…. We are giving you a last opportunity to set your house in order. Otherwise, we are going to haul you up. CJI-led Bench

“We are putting you on notice. If this is not rectified, we will have to come down heavily on you. Because it appears, ex facie, that there has been an attempt to go around our order… We will now take it very seriously. Tell the authority at the highest level. We want this to be rectified. Next day, if you tell us a different thing, we will have to issue a notice of contempt,” a Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud told Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj on Wednesday. “Now, we are giving you a last opportunity to set your house in order. Otherwise, we are going to haul you up,” said the Bench that also included Justice JB Pardiwala.

Asking the Ministry of Defence to file an affidavit on the issue in two weeks, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on April 21.

Natraj said that if possible, the Defence Ministry would definitely rectify it. On behalf of the petitioners, senior counsel V Mohana said the top court’s decision in Lt Col Nitisha & Others vs Union of India & Others, spelling out the terms by which the overall service profile of women officers was required to be considered, has to be followed by the MoD.

Though the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the women officers based on their whole service profile were required to be considered, they were pegged at the ACRs for 2011, she complained.

Mohana alleged that fresh barriers such as refusal of the selection board to consider the latest ACRs of the women officers, insistence on filling vacancies on a pro rata basis, deliberately making woman officers, on getting promoted, lead contingents that were normally led by officers junior in rank.

Stating that the male officers who underwent the promotion process were reviewed twice by different boards in one year, Mohana alleged that for women, the same board conducted the review process.

Mohana lamented that women officers had to keep coming back to the top court for total compliance, in both letter and spirit, of the judgment that said women officers should be given a permanent commission and all other consequential benefits.