
Supreme Court directs Centre, IAF not to release officer part of Operation Sindoor from service
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh sought responses from the Centre and the IAF on the plea of Wing Commander Nikita Pandey who claimed discrimination for being denied permanent commission. The Bench called IAF a professional force and said the uncertainty on service was not good for such officers.
"Our Air Force is one of the best organisations in the world. Officers are very commendable. Quality of coordination they have exhibited, I think it's unparalleled. Therefore, we always salute them. They are a big asset for the nation. They are the nation, in a way. Because of them, we are able to sleep at night," Justice Kant said.
The Bench noted 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. "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," Justice Kant said.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the officer, 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.
The senior counsel submitted that the officer had served more than 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. 'The officer ranked second in the merit list of expert air fighter controllers in the country,' Ms. Guruswamy added.
The Bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the IAF, the reason for not granting the officer permanent commission. Ms. Bhati revealed she belonged to an armed forces background herself, therefore, being receptive of the predicament of such officers but argued that the petitioner was found unfit by the selection board. She said the officer directly moved the Supreme Court without filing any representation and informed the Bench that a second selection board would be considering her case.
The Bench ordered Ms. Pandey not to be released from service till further orders and posted the hearing on August 6. The Supreme Court, however, said no equity would be created in her favour and left open all the contentions in the case.
Ms. Bhati had no objections in the officers continuing in service as most of the officers in the armed forces were brilliant officers but ultimate question related to the comparative merit and the need for keeping the forces young. She said a "steep pyramidal structure" was followed by 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 Ms. Bhati that armed forces should have the capacity to accommodate all SSC officers in the permanent commission, highlighting women officers performed exceedingly well. "Due to the lack of permanent commission for women officers after a long duration, Short Service Commission recruitment are taking place. That is the reason that inter se competition arises after 10, 12 and 15 years. You can have a policy of taking that many SCC officers, who can be accommodated in the Permanent Commission, if they are found suitable. If you have 100 SCC officers, you should have the capacity to take 100 of them to the permanent commission," the judge said.
Ms. Bhati replied that normally out of 100 officers considered for the permanent commission, almost 90-95% officers were found fit but some lost out only on account of comparative merit. "There are a limited number of posts, it's a very steep pyramid structure," she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NDTV
14 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump Once Again Claims He Stopped India, Pak War
Washington: US President Donald Trump on Monday once again repeated his claim that he stopped the war between India and Pakistan. Talking to the press in the Oval Office while meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump claimed to have ended six wars, including the war between India and Pakistan. While answering a question, Trump said he thought that the Russia-Ukraine war would be the "easiest one" to end, but it is not. Trump said that "it is the tough one", and we have been talking about it for a long time, like "we were talking about others …India-Pakistan." Trump also indirectly mentioned India and Pakistan on his Truth Social post earlier in the day. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump posted. Since May 10, when Trump announced on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to a "full and immediate" ceasefire after a "long night" of talks mediated by Washington, he has repeated his claim over 40 times that he "helped settle" the tensions between India and Pakistan. India has been consistently maintaining that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said in Parliament that no leader of any country asked India to stop Operation Sindoor. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has categorically said there was no third-party intervention in bringing about a ceasefire with Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. On the day of his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, Trump repeated multiple times within hours his claim that he stopped the war between India and Pakistan, as well as spoke about Delhi's purchases of Russian oil.

The Hindu
14 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CPI urges government to form expert committee to release Tamil Nadu Labour Policy
The 26th State Conference of the Communist Party of India (CPI) demanded that the Tamil Nadu government release the State's Labour Policy. The four-day conference, which began on August 15 in Salem, concluded with a rally and public meeting on Monday evening. During the conference, the CPI passed several resolutions. One of the key resolutions criticised the Centre for consolidating 44 labour welfare laws into four labour codes, against which workers across the country have been protesting. Anti-labour provisions The resolution stated that the anti-labour provisions in these codes were being gradually implemented in Tamil Nadu. The CPI highlighted the lack of job regularisation in the State, noting that workers were increasingly being recruited through outsourcing in government and government-related sectors. These workers face job insecurity and receive no monetary benefits upon exit. The resolution pointed out that over 3 crore workers in the State earn around ₹12,000 as salary, and that implementing such policies under pressure from big corporates and the Centre contradicts the ideals of the 'Dravidian model' of governance. The CPI urged the State government to form an expert committee and, based on its recommendations, release the Tamil Nadu Labour Policy — similar to the release of the State Education Policy and Industrial Policy — to ensure a dignified life for workers. The party also demanded that the State government refrain from outsourcing local body work to private entities; fix minimum wages for workers in government-related sectors; ensure the safety of inter-caste couples; and implement the law preventing honour killings. The CPI strongly condemned the Union Petroleum Ministry for publishing a photo of RSS leader V.D. Savarkar alongside Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, and Subhas Chandra Bose. It demanded an apology from the Ministry and action against those responsible. Additionally, the CPI condemned the police's treatment of conservancy workers in Chennai. Defamatory statements Speaking at the public meeting, CPI State secretary R. Mutharasan criticised AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami for aligning with the BJP despite previously promising not to do so. He accused Mr. Palaniswami of spreading defamatory statements against the Left parties and asserted that the AIADMK-BJP alliance would be defeated in the 2026 Assembly election. CPI general secretary D. Raja highlighted the party's history, noting that both CPI and RSS were founded in 1925. He said while the CPI fought battles during the British period for the freedom struggle, the RSS did not participate in the movement. He added that the RSS was banned following Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, yet Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the organisation in his Independence Day speech. Mr. Raja called for strengthening the CPI to ensure adequate representation in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. He also criticised India's silence on the genocide in Gaza, stating that historically, India had always supported the Palestinian cause. He concluded by announcing that the CPI's national conference would soon be held in Punjab and emphasised the party's responsibility to work with democratic forces to unseat the BJP at the Centre.


Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
A chill is setting in that will take a long time to recover in the India-US relationship
Synopsis The India-US relationship has deteriorated, with disproportionate responses from the White House despite India's efforts to address trade concerns. Political imperatives in the US, rather than trade merits, seem to be driving the decisions, leading to a chill in relations and a hardening public mood in India. Over the past few weeks, as the India-US relationship has near-imploded, several opinions and assessments have emerged. Most analysts have been measured and thoughtful, and attempted to discern the long view. Others have been astonishingly uninformed, ranging from amateurs talking through their hats to (former) professionals opining through their golf caps. ADVERTISEMENT To be sure, any consequential policy episode must see a reckoning and self-appraisal within the government. This is to be expected in an accountable democracy. The external affairs ministry, commerce ministry and even the PMO would naturally undertake such an exercise. Were there diplomatic missteps? Could the trade negotiations have gone differently? Were gaps in Operation Sindoor's strategic comms deterministic? These are all good questions. Since there is always room for improvement, they must be asked and deliberated upon. However, this should not deflect from a fundamental and pivotal point: nothing India did, no act of commission or omission, merited the sort of response that has come from the White House and Trump regime. It's egregiously disproportionate. Inevitably, this warrants the conclusion that the issue is not about some minor sticking point that can be resolved with a 'high-level phone call' here, or more 'trade concessions' there. Advice that India should rethink its position on GM food, or making investment announcements even without resources to back them, is not particularly sensible those who should know better have advocated reckless and adventurist approaches that no Indian minister, civil servant or public official - past, present and future - can carry out. The legitimate restraints of the Indian system will always - and correctly - prevent also needs to be said India's diplomats recognised the importance of the trade and tariffs issue very early, and worked to a win-win plan. On their part, trade negotiators from the commerce ministry - again, often criticised - came up with the most ambitious market-access package in India's history. They were given the political space for it by the PM, and they delivered. ADVERTISEMENT Whatever else it is, the White House's rejection/non- acceptance of the trade offer - which would give the US an unprecedented market and strategic advantage in India - is not on merits. Even USTR insiders have that appreciation. So, what is driving the Trump regime's decision flow? How goalposts have shifted repeatedly in recent weeks would suggest that trade imperatives have long given way to political imperatives, perhaps even strategic and domestic calculations in the US president's inner council. If that is, indeed, the case, the basket of bilateral challenges could both deepen and expand in the near term. ADVERTISEMENT Either way, the relationship will take a long time to recover to the levels of political trust it has been used to over the past 20 years. A chill is setting in. The public mood is hardening, and the pressure on the Narendra Modi government - including on its ability to offer further trade concessions - is there for all to reckoning in New Delhi is that India is facing the most structured and coercive assault on its strategic autonomy - industrial and policy - in a long time. Inevitably, this perception will shape reactions. Consequences will not be limited to just the immediate future. ADVERTISEMENT No doubt there will be an economic cost. 50% tariffs are not going to be easy to manage, particularly for industries significantly dependent on US exports. Yet, this will also make other sectors wary of the geopolitical risks of excessive market exposure to the US. Rather than spur further engagement - as the trajectory of India-US relations has done in recent decades - it will induce caution and a desire to hedge and diversify. India's economic approaches towards China and Russia will become a self-fulfilling prophecy for Washington's tariff a slightly longer, but still not-too-distant, timeframe, India could conclude a trade deal with the EU. Once the EU recovers from its current 'He loves us, he loves us not' trans-Atlantic minuet, and assesses its position in the ballroom, it will note the opportunity of the moment. Next, India needs to find a non-China, non-RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) pathway to an economic and supply chains partnership with the Indo-Pacific. ADVERTISEMENT CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) lends itself as an idea. Admittedly, CPTPP standards are very stringent. Could there be a trade-off between political comfort - the absence of arm-twisting and/or supply chains surrender - and calibrating just how much an external trade agreement could be used to drive internal reform and regulatory change? The process will not be easy, or without pain. Even so, if it is achieved, it could give India a longer-term hedge and option vis-a-vis the US. The lessons of the Summer of 2025 will alter the baseline for a reset, whenever that happens. This is not a stare-down India wanted - or, more accurately, wants. But whatever happens, India cannot allow itself to be outstared. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY