Supreme Court clears way for permanent commission to women in Indian Navy

If granted Permanent Commission, women naval officers can serve till the age of retirement and will be entitled to pension.

Deciding on a batch of appeals arising from a decision of the Delhi High Court and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi rejected arguments that the current design of mostly Russian-origin ships in the Navy were not sufficient to accommodate women, calling the explanations “devices adopted to justify an action”.

Writing for the bench, Jutsice Chandrachud said, “History is replete with examples where women have been denied their just entitlements under law and the right to fair and equal treatment in the workplace. In the context of the Armed Forces, specious reasons have been advanced by decision makers and administrators. They range from physiology, motherhood and physical attributes to the male dominated hierarchies. A hundred and one excuses are no answer to the constitutional entitlement to dignity, which attaches to every individual irrespective of gender, to fair and equal conditions of work and to a level playing field. A level playing field ensures that women have the opportunity to overcome their histories of discrimination with the surest of responses based on their competence, ability and performance.”

The bench pointed out that it was urged by the Additional Solicitor General that sailing in the Indian Navy is not a proper avocation for women and that certain avenues such as sea-sailing duties are ill-suited for women officers as there is no return to the base, unlike in the Army and the Air Force.

Rejecting these, the court, while directing the Centre to act on its directions and file a report in three months, said, “the above reasons are illusory and without any foundation. Women officers have worked shoulder to shoulder with their men counterparts in every walk of service”.

The bench largely agreed with the submissions of Senior Advocates C U Singh and Aishwarya Bhati and Advocate Santosh Krishnan who appeared for the women officers.

It said the submissions against PC for women officers were “plainly contrary to the policy letter dated 25 February 1999 issued by the MoD (Ministry of Defence) to the Chief of the Naval Staff. The policy letter emphatically stipulates that women officers of all branches/cadres could be directed to serve on board ships both during training and subsequent employment in accordance with the exigencies of service”.

The bench added that “quite apart from the policy letter dated 25 February 1999, the contention that certain sea-going duties are ill-suited to women officers is premised on sex stereotypes that male officers are more suited to certain duties by virtue of the physiological characteristics”.

The court recalled its recent order in the Babita Puniya case wherein it ruled in favour of Permanent Commission for women in Army and said as was noted in that judgment, “arguments founded on the physical strengths and weaknesses of men and women do not constitute a constitutionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity to women officers. To accept the contention urged by the ASG would be to approve the socially ascribed gender roles…”

The bench found that the government had already drawn up policies in 1991 and 1998 to give Permanent Commission to women in the Navy.

It directed that the stipulation in a policy letter dated September 26, 2008, making the grant of PC prospective and restricting its application to specified cadres/branches of the Navy shall not be enforced.

The Government by means of a notification on October 9, 1991, had made women eligible for appointment as officers in the Law and Logistics cadres and the Education branch. By way of a second notification on November 6, 1998, it broadened the scope of the permissible areas for entry of women to all the four branches.