
SC begins hearing pleas of women Army officers denied permanent commissions
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh began hearing the petitions filed by two batches of officers, those serving and those released from service.
The top court said after the Army officers, it would hear pleas from women Naval officers, followed by women officers in the Air Force, who are also challenging the denial of permanent commissions.
'Systematic discrimination'
Senior advocates Huzefa Ahmadi, Menaka Guruswamy, V. Mohana, and other lawyers represented the SSC woman officers, who contended there was systematic discrimination in not granting them permanent commissions. The women officers contended that there was casual grading of their annual confidential reports and denial of equal opportunities in comparison to their male counterparts.
The Bench proposed uniform guidelines in granting permanent commissions, but pointed out that factors such as specialised training must be kept in mind. It also asked the officers what they felt should be the basis for assessment for permanent commissions.
Inconclusive
The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of more than 75 petitions challenging the denial of permanent commissions on various grounds. The hearing remained inconclusive and will be continued on August 7.
The top court said that interim orders passed earlier would remain in force, restraining the Centre from releasing these officers from service till the adjudication of their pleas.
On May 9, the court had asked the Centre not to release from service SSC women Army officers challenging the denial of permanent commission, asking the government not to "bring their morale down" in "the prevailing situation".
'Administrative decision'
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, has contended that it was an administrative decision, based on a policy to keep the armed forces young.
Ms. Guruswamy, appearing for Colonel Geeta Sharma, has earlier referred to the case of Colonel Sofia Qureshi, one of the two women officers who had briefed the media on Operation Sindoor on May 7 and 8.
The women officers have relied upon the 2020 verdict of the Supreme Court, when the Army was directed to grant them permanent commissions.
'Absolute exclusion indefensible'
In its February 17, 2020 ruling, the top court said that absolute exclusion of women from all positions in the Army, except staff assignments, was indefensible, adding that their blanket non-consideration for command appointments without any justification could not be sustained in law.
The Supreme Court, which allowed permanent commissions to women officers in the Army, said an absolute prohibition of women Short Service Commission officers to obtain anything but staff appointments evidently did not fulfil the purpose of granting permanent commissions as a means of career advancement in the Army.
The top court also referred to the distinctions achieved by women officers, offering the example of Col. Qureshi's achievements.
Since the 2020 verdict, the top court has passed several orders on the issue of permanent commissions to women officers in the armed forces, with similar orders were passed in the case of the Navy, Indian Air Force, and Coast Guard.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Got directly involved when India, Pakistan went to war, says Marco Rubio
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday (IST) said that Washington was directly involved when India and Pakistan went to war, adding that President Donald Trump was able to broker peace between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Rubio made these remarks in an interview with EWTN's The World Over and said that Trump is committed to bringing peace and being the 'President of peace'. He said, 'So, we saw when India and Pakistan went to war, we got involved directly, and the President was able to deliver on that peace.' Since India and Pakistan reached an understanding to stop full-scale military actions on May 10, the US President, on several occasions, claimed that he helped in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, and told the two nuclear-armed neighbours that the US would do a lot of trade if the conflict were brought to an end. Operation Sindoor On the intervening night of May 6 and May 7, the Indian armed forces launched a coordinated missile strike on terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The coordinated strikes under the codename ' Operation Sindoor ' were in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of 26 people, mostly tourists. What followed was four days of escalations between India and Pakistan across the Line of Control (LoC). On May 10, both nations agreed to a ceasefire. While India has repeatedly denied Trump's claim of intervening in the conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir thanked the US for playing the role of a mediator. Munir made these remarks after he was hosted by Trump at the White House for lunch in June. Other conflicts resolved by Trump He further said that the US was proud of those initiatives, and is looking for more, the big one being in Ukraine and Russia. 'We dedicate a significant amount of time to stopping and ending wars,' Rubio said. Russia-Ukraine conflict The conflict between Russia and Ukraine entered its fourth year in February 2025 with no end in sight. Trump, who once vowed to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict in just 24 hours of taking office, has been trying to broker a deal between the two countries for over eight months now. Trump, who once supported the Russian President Vladimir Putin and shunned the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, later shifted stance and expressed his disappointment with Putin, while simultaneously allowing the US to send weapons to Ukraine.


India.com
2 minutes ago
- India.com
SC To Hear Plea Seeking Restoration Of Jammu And Kashmir Statehood Today
The Supreme Court will hear a petition seeking directions to the Central Government to restore statehood to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir on Friday. The plea was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who confirmed that the matter has been listed for hearing on August 8 (Friday). The petition, filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, contends that the continued delay in restoring statehood is 'gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism.' The applicants argue that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. "In re: Article 370 of the Constitution" verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. However, it had ordered the Election Commission of India to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible". During the earlier hearings, SG Mehta had told the court that the Union Home Ministry could not provide a specific timeline and that it would take 'some time' to restore statehood. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.


The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
SC rolls back its order removing Allahabad HC judge from hearing criminal cases
Supreme Court on Friday (August 8, 2025) rolled back its order removing Allahabad High Court Justice Prashant Kumar from hearing criminal cases after the Chief Justice of India intervened with a letter requesting for a rebook into the order. As many as 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court had written to Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali on Thursday (August 7, 2025), requesting the convening of a Full Court meeting and urging that the Apex Court's order removing Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster not be implemented. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, on August 4, 2025, directed the Allahabad high court administration to remove Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster, while hearing an appeal filed by private firm seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated over it in a commercial dispute. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' the Bench had written in its 19-page order.