SC Directs IAF Not To Release Officer Part Of Op Sindoor Who Was Denied Permanent Commission
Last Updated:
Wing Commander Nikita Pandey had alleged discrimination for being denied permanent commission in the Air Force. The matter will be taken up on August 6.
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Central government and the Indian Air Force (IAF) not to release a woman officer from service, who was part of Operation Balakot in 2019 and Operation Sindoor, but was denied permanent commission.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh sought responses from the Centre and IAF while hearing a plea from Wing Commander Nikita Pandey, who alleged discrimination for being denied permanent commission.
The bench noted that a 'tough life" for Short Service Commission (SSC) officers began following their recruitment, which called for some incentive after 10 or 15 years to grant them permanent commission. Justice Kant hailed the Air Force as one of the best organisations in the world and an asset to the nation, but said the uncertainty may hurt the force.
'That sense of uncertainty may not be good for the Armed Forces. It's a layman's suggestion, because we are not experts. On minimum benchmarks, there can't be a compromise," he said.
Who Is Wing Commander Nikita Pandey?
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing Wing Commander Pandey, said her client was an expert fighter controller, who participated as an expert in the Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS), which were deployed in Operation Sindoor and Operation Balakot.
Pandey had served over 13.5 years in service but was impacted by a 2019 policy that denied her permanent commission and forced her to conclude her service after a month. She ranked second in the merit list of expert air fighter controllers in India, her counsel said.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the IAF, told the court that the petitioner was found unfit by the selection board. She said the officer directly moved the apex court without filing any representation and informed the bench that a second selection board would be considering her case.
The Supreme Court has directed that Wing Commander Pandey remain in service until further notice, adjourning the matter to August 6. However, it clarified that this interim relief would not grant her any legal advantage, and all issues in the case will remain open for consideration.
Bhati said a 'steep pyramidal structure" was followed by the IAF, which requires that certain officers go out of the service after serving 14 years and new officers come in their place. Justice Kant told Bhati that the armed forces should have the capacity to accommodate all SSC officers in the permanent commission, highlighting that women officers performed exceedingly well.
First Published:
May 23, 2025, 12:27 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
We were there to explain India's 'new normal': Jay Panda on global outreach campaign
BJP MP Jay Panda, who headed the global outreach delegations on Operation Sindoor which visited Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Algeria, talked about the message they sent across and how it was received by the countries. When asked about what was your message to strategic partners like Saudi Arabia and how was your message received by other Islamic countries through this visit since Pakistan continues to play the Muslim card? Jay Panda said, "Our message was very clear. Our message is that we've gone through this same cycle of terrorism for 78 years. Pakistan sending cross-border terrorists and the whole cycle, the whole rigmarole, provoking attacks and nuclear blackmail. And so we were there to explain the new normal, new India's new normal, which is that we will retaliate and we will specifically target terrorist bases."
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
