SC slams Navy for denying Permanent Commission to woman JAG Officer
New Delhi, May 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court has criticised the Indian Navy for not granting Permanent Commission (PC) to Commander Seema Chaudhary, a woman officer from the 2007 Short Service Commission (SSC) batch in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, despite clear directions given earlier by the top judiciary.
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
New Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON: Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. "What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president," said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
New Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Bharat Mata row: CPI hits out at Raj Bhavan, to hoist Tricolour in protest
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Coming out against the Raj Bhavan over the Bharat Mata row, CPI state secretary Binoy Viswam on Friday said all branches of the party will hoist the national flag and plant saplings on Saturday to underscore the message that Bharat Mata is truly represented by the Tricolour. He said the saplings will be nurtured by the party branches as symbols of national unity. 'The events that unfolded in the past 48 hours in the Raj Bhavan, culminating in the sanctification of an image associated with the RSS in the official residence of the constitutional authority, cannot be condoned by anyone who celebrates the idea of India and honours the Constitution in letter and spirit,' Binoy said. Elaborating on the circumstances that led to the controversy, he said on World Environment Day on June 5, the agriculture department headed by Minister P Prasad decided to distribute and plant saplings with the participation of the honourable Governor at the Raj Bhavan. 'On June 4, the minister's office received a 'revised' schedule of programme in which 'prayer' was replaced with 'lighting of the lamp' and paying 'floral tributes to Bharatamba' (image of Bharat Mata allegedly used by the RSS at its functions),' he said. Binoy said Prasad called the official in charge at Raj Bhavan and enquired about the changes. 'He was told floral offerings would be made to a portrait of Bharatamba. The minister said details of the portrait should be shared as it is a government event and unprecedented changes, for both the government and Raj Bhavan, are now being incorporated,' he said.
The Wire
41 minutes ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
