SC slams Navy for denying Permanent Commission to woman JAG Officer
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh took serious note of the Navy's inaction, making it clear that the court's previous direction to 'consider' the officer's case could not be used as an excuse to avoid action.
'Enough is enough… we give you one week to grant her Permanent Commission,' Justice Kant stated sternly during the hearing.
The case revolves around Commander Seema Chaudhary, who has faced prolonged legal battles and filed nearly five petitions seeking justice. Her counsel, Senior Advocate Rekha Palli, argued that while male officers are inducted directly into Permanent Commission, women officers are only taken in through Short Service Commission. She added that currently, there are no women JAG officers in the Navy.
After reviewing Chaudhary's service record and performance reports, the court questioned why she was denied PC, especially when she was found fit in all respects.
In defence, Senior Advocate Dr. R. Balasubramanian, representing the Navy, pointed to three Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) that included adverse comments.
However, the court noted that these ACRs had already been overruled by the reviewing authority.
Justice Kant also criticised the bias reflected in the ACRs, implying a male superior had unfairly assessed the officer's work. 'She was graded well in all parameters, and one officer's personal opinion cannot undo her service,' he remarked.
The bench reminded the Navy that a 2024 Supreme Court order had already directed reconsideration of the officer's case under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court had ordered that Chaudhary's case be decided independently, as she was the only 2007-batch JAG woman officer eligible for PC.
The judgment also permitted the Navy to proportionally increase the number of PC vacancies to accommodate her, ensuring that no other officer would be displaced and that this move would not set a precedent.
Justice Kant reminded the Navy's counsel, 'This is not about ego. The 2024 judgment has reached finality. It cannot be ignored at the whims of authorities.'
The petitioner alleged that her PC was being denied as retaliation for a workplace harassment complaint she filed against a male officer.
A Board of Inquiry reportedly found merit in her complaint, yet she was transferred within a day of filing it, while the accused officer remained in the same post.
On the request of Dr. Balasubramanian to seek further instructions, the court agreed to list the matter for further hearing in the first week of July.
UNI SNG SSP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
31 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Calcutta HC division bench refuses to interfere with single-judge WBJEE result order
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court in a hearing on Thursday (August 21, 2025) refused to interfere with an earlier single-judge order that directed the State to prepare a new merit list and publish the results of the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination by August 22, providing 7% reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates recognised pre-2010. The Calcutta High Court in May 2024 had struck down all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal since 2010. The matter surrounding revisions in the State government's OBC list is currently pending with the Supreme Court. The declaration of results of WBJEE, an entrance exam for undergraduate engineering, technology, architecture, and pharmacy courses in West Bengal's State-run and State-aided universities, have been inordinately delayed this year since it was conducted on April 27 this year. 'The West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations Board shall recast the merit list and publish a fresh panel, providing 7% reservation for the 66 classes of O.B.C. candidates as recognised by the West Bengal Backward Classes Department prior to 2010,' a single judge bench of Justice Kausik Chanda had said in its order on August 7. The court had also directed the government to complete the aforementioned exercise and release the revised merit list within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, that is by August 22. The division bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De refused to interfere in the order passed by Justice Chanda on Thursday. Meanwhile, the WBJEE Board issued a circular on August 18 directing candidates to mention their caste/tribe/community names and upload their Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes and OBC certificates on the official website. The window to do so closed on Thursday. The delay in WBJEE results led to protests in political circles, with the Leader of Opposition of the West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari warning on August 18 that Bharatiya Janata Party legislators will hold dharnas outside the Education Department headquarters if the results are not published by this week. 'We want the results to be out as soon as possible. We also believe that authorities have not given this issue enough importance. The only thing of consequence which has happened after prolonged legal battles is the delay in our results, which has caused considerable anxiety in us,' 17-year-old engineering aspirant Shithan Roy told The Hindu. He added that many who are waiting for the results are struggling mentally due to the uncertainty. 'We feel unheard and uncared for,' Mr. Roy said.
India.com
31 minutes ago
- India.com
Not Aadhaar, PAN Or Voter ID: So What Really Makes You An Indian Citizen?
New Delhi: Citizenship has become a topic of intense discussion after the Bombay High Court clarified that having an Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not automatically make someone an Indian citizen. These documents serve only as proof of identity, the court said. This raises an important question: if PAN, voter ID or Aadhaar are not proof of citizenship, what officially establishes Indian nationality? Legally, India does not mandate a single document to prove citizenship. The Constitution lays down specific conditions. Anyone meeting these conditions qualifies as an Indian citizen. Add Zee News as a Preferred Source Citizenship matters because it defines the legal bond between an individual and the nation. It grants rights and privileges. These include fundamental rights, voting rights, legal protections, employment rights and a sense of belonging. Laws determine who qualifies as a citizen. The Constitution of India, in Articles 5 to 11, outlines the rules. On January 26, 1950, all individuals living in India qualified as citizens if they were born in India, had at least one parent born in India or had resided in India for the preceding five years. Certain groups who migrated from Pakistan also qualifies. They include those whose parents or grandparents were born in undivided India, individuals who returned to India after moving to Pakistan and persons born abroad to Indian parents or grandparents. The Citizenship Act of 1955 expanded these provisions. It defines the circumstances under which citizenship can be granted or revoked. Citizenship can be acquired through birth, descent, registration, naturalization or integration of new territories into India. Birth-Based Citizenship Section 3 grants citizenship to individuals born in India between January 26, 1950 and July 1, 1986 or those born later with at least one Indian parent. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2003 further refined the rules, covering children born after its enactment. Descent-Based Citizenship Section 4 allows individuals born outside India to claim citizenship if one parent is an Indian citizen. Registration within a year of birth at an Indian mission is required for those born abroad after December 3, 2004. Registration And Naturalisation Foreign nationals meeting specific criteria can apply for citizenship under Section 5. They must renounce previous citizenship once approved. Section 6 allows long-term residents to apply through naturalisation, following a set procedure. Citizenship Through New Territories Section 7 covers cases where foreign territories become part of India. Legal procedures confirm citizenship, and an official government notification lists eligible residents. Proof Of Citizenship India does not issue a single, universal document as proof of citizenship. Birth certificates serve as evidence for individuals born in India, issued by local municipal or panchayat authorities. Applications can be made online or offline, and approved certificates record the place of birth, confirming eligibility for citizenship. Those granted citizenship through registration or naturalisation receive a certificate signed by an Indian government official of under-secretary rank or higher. This certificate serves as official proof of Indian citizenship. Documents such as passports, Aadhaar, PAN, voter ID or ration cards are not legal proof of citizenship. They serve as identity documents or residency proof and cannot confer citizenship. Lack of these documents does not strip a person of Indian nationality.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Day before SIR hearing, EC files compliance report before SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a compliance report before the Supreme Court ahead of Friday's hearing on the ongoing revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, which has drawn scrutiny after large-scale deletions. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A person aware of the development told Hindustan Times that the Commission has submitted a 'three-to-four page compliance report which says that all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court on August 14 have been complied with promptly.' The source added that the ECI has also placed on record a status report, giving details of the directions issued to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) as well as the reports received back from them. 'The Commission had asked all 38 DEOs to furnish the status of compliance with the Court's orders, and these have now been compiled and submitted,' the person said. CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at a press conference on Sunday had said that the Commission has complied with SC's directives in '56 hours.' The Court, on August 14, had recorded the ECI's consent to adopt interim measures designed to improve transparency in the electoral roll revision. These measures require the online publication of the names of nearly sixty-five lakh voters who appeared in the 2025 rolls but are missing from the draft rolls. Each district's website is to host booth-wise data, searchable by EPIC number, along with reasons for exclusion. The Bench had set a deadline of August 19 for completing the exercise. To ensure that the exercise is not limited to digital publication, the Bench also directed wide publicity. 'The lists must be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation and broadcast on television and radio,' the Court noted, adding that district-level officials should also use their social media platforms to alert voters. Further, the booth-level officers were instructed to display the excluded-voter lists at Block Development Offices or Panchayat offices, so that citizens in rural areas could physically inspect them. The Bench also required that the notices should expressly inform citizens that they may file claims for inclusion in the rolls, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. A consolidated state-level list is also to be made available on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. 'The idea is to ensure that no eligible voter is left without recourse,' the Bench had observed while fixing the matter for monitoring on August 22. Friday's hearing, advanced to 12 pm from the initially scheduled 2 pm, is expected to be brief as Justice Bagchi, who leads the Bench, has to preside over a special bench at 3 pm. 'The court might give further directions after taking a note of the report,' the person cited earlier said.
