logo
#

Latest news with #JusticeManmohan

Why can't Army deploy women officers to counter terror, insurgency in times of emergency, SC asks in a judgment
Why can't Army deploy women officers to counter terror, insurgency in times of emergency, SC asks in a judgment

The Hindu

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • The Hindu

Why can't Army deploy women officers to counter terror, insurgency in times of emergency, SC asks in a judgment

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 11, 2025) asked why the Army cannot deploy women officers to counter terror and insurgency in an emergency if other Armed Forces like the Air Force sent women behind enemy lines in jets, choppers and parachutes. The question came in a judgment pronounced by a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, which struck down a policy of the Army restricting the appointment of women officers to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch. The women candidates were represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. The Bench said a policy bifurcating candidates on the basis of gender and reserving more posts for men did not meet the standards of law. The judgment authored by Justice Manmohan clarified that the court was not imposing its views on the Army, but implementing the Constitution and the mandate of law. 'No nation can be secure when half of its population [i.e. its women force] is held back,' Justice Manmohan observed. It directed the Union government to publish a common merit list for all JAG candidates, men and women, and make the marks public. The apex court dismissed the Union government's argument that the JAG branch consisted of 'exclusively combatant personnel' as they were a reserve for mobilisation. The court said this contention ran contrary to the right of women to form part of all combat support arms services. It further violated the right of women to be treated as equals in all aspects of their employment in the Army. Besides, the court noted that with a strength of over 1.4 million active, 2.1 million reserve and 1.3 million paramilitary personnel compared to just 285 JAG officers, it would be an extreme stretch to claim that women ought to be excluded, as there may be JAG deployment in times of war. The court said the Centre's argument that women officers were not deployed for counterinsurgency or in counter-terror forces as they were 'not expected to discharge the role of combatants in case of armed conflicts' had no legislative sanction or basis. Justice Manmohan said there was no restriction in other Armed Forces on the appointment of women in combat posts. The Air Force has continually opened new combat air force roles for women as fighter pilots, helicopter pilots, etc. 'When women officers like Captain Ojaswita Shree of the elite Parachute Air Defence Unit, Major Dwipannita Kalita of highly specialised airborne medical unit of the Army and Flight Lieutenant Shivangi Singh (pilot of Rafale jet) of the Air Force can operate behind enemy lines with all expected risks, why women officers in times of emergency cannot be deployed for counter-insurgency or in counter-terror forces or attached to infantry/artillery units,' the apex court questioned. The court reasoned that if women officers could be entrusted with complex tasks such as transporting convoys of 30 to 50 vehicles through militant-prone areas in Leh, Srinagar, Udhampur and the North-East, why cannot they be relied on in operational areas. 'For instance, Major Gopika Bhatti commanded a convoy from Leh to Pathankot in 2010, overseeing junior commissioned officers and jawans, managing logistics, arms, and ammunition. Women officers like Colonel Anshu Jamwal have been actively involved in UN Peacekeeping missions since 2004, serving in combat zones like Syria, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Congo and Israel, further illustrating their capability to perform in high-risk, operational environments,' Justice Manmohan observed. 'This court understands that people always fear change. But as Bill Gates, Microsoft co-founder, famously said, 'People feared electricity when it was invented. Didn't they?' Justice Manmohan wrote.

On Woman Judge's Plea For Childcare Leave, Jharkhand Court's Response
On Woman Judge's Plea For Childcare Leave, Jharkhand Court's Response

NDTV

time11-06-2025

  • Politics
  • NDTV

On Woman Judge's Plea For Childcare Leave, Jharkhand Court's Response

New Delhi: A woman judge in Jharkhand who challenged the High Court's decision to curtail her childcare leave, or CCL, cannot take more than what she has been offered, the High Court has informed the Supreme Court. Doing that will set a precedent and affect the district judiciary, the top court has been told. The Additional District Judge, a single parent, has contended that she had sought six months out of the 730 days she is allowed. Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked Jharkhand High Court to reconsider the matter. The judges said it was better that the high court revisit the issue, since the top court's directions could set a precedent. The court had sought a response from the Jharkhand government and the high court registry on May 29. Today, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan -- hearing the submissions of the Jharkhand high court and the judge's counsels -- issued a fresh notice to the High Court when she flagged that after she moved top court, some adverse remarks were made in her Annual Confidential Report, suggesting performance counselling. The high court said it has reconsidered her prayers and granted her 92 days of CCL but granting more (total 8 months) will become a precedent and impact district judiciary. The judge had sought 194 days more days. The judicial officer had sought leave from June and December in view of her child's exam. According to the Childcare Leave Rules applicable to the judicial officers, the judge is entitled to up to 730 days of leave during her service tenure and she sought six months of the entitlement, she has argued in her petition. "She is a single parent from the lowest strata of society," the judge's lawyer said, and underscored her "impressive" service record in which she had disposed of over 4,000 cases in over two-and-a-half years. "It is submitted that the Petitioner's application for grant of leave was mechanically rejected without assigning any valid reason, whereas the application of another judicial officer for grant of CCL was approved by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Such differential treatment, without assigning any reason may also violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the plea read. The judge also contended that after completing three years in Hazaribagh, she had applied for transfer to Bokaro or Ranchi, citing that those places offer better prospects of education for her son, who wanted to do his plus-two in science. He was to get admission for Class 11 in March. But her request was not granted and she was transferred to Dumka -- 230 km from Hazaribagh that takes 8 hours of travel by train. The top court will again hear the matter after 4 weeks.

Supreme Court grills Army over gender cap: If women can fly Rafales...
Supreme Court grills Army over gender cap: If women can fly Rafales...

India Today

time12-05-2025

  • Politics
  • India Today

Supreme Court grills Army over gender cap: If women can fly Rafales...

Questioning why meritorious female candidates are being excluded despite scoring higher than male counterparts, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a plea challenging the cap on the number of women inducted into the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army.A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan took a strong stance on the Army's policy, asking whether such limits were legally and constitutionally justified. 'Section 12 says no female shall be eligible for enrolment in the army, sans permit but you have permitted women to get enroled in the JAG branch. Once, you have permitted them, can you restrict the intake that will be there?' the bench officers serve a crucial legal function in the armed forces — offering legal advice, representing the Army in judicial proceedings, ensuring compliance with military law, and handling court-martials and disciplinary actions. The Indian Army defended its policy by citing operational requirements, saying that JAG officers are 'attached to infantry battalions and expected to perform combat roles,' and that the original 70:30 male-to-female ratio was designed with these needs in the court was not convinced. 'Even if we concede that this is a valid policy decision, the aim is to ensure that fighting efficiency, combat effectiveness and functionality are not compromised. So keeping these factors in mind, you have to do it! You cannot arbitrarily say I will take 3 out of 10! If there are women who are more capable than men and your fighting efficiency and combat effectiveness will not be compromised, then how can you say it will be 3 out of 10?' the bench Army, through Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, informed the court that the intake ratio had been revised to 50:50 from 2024 onwards 'to bring the gender parity in the JAG Branch.' However, the bench responded that this definition of parity was flawed. 'Gender parity does not mean 50:50 it means that you are eligible regardless of your gender,' the judges further submitted that women JAG officers are not deployed at the Line of Control (LoC) or other border areas due to a consistent policy barring women from combat roles. 'The policy decision is that women will not be put anywhere near the LOC where the enemy may have access to them,' she bench raised questions over this reasoning as well. 'I read yesterday that a woman is flying a Rafale jet, now god forbid, if, due to something unforeseen, she lands in the territory outside India, would she not be a prisoner of war? Can this situation be avoided? When you can let women command jets, why can't you induct them into the Army, especially when they are more meritorious than men in the present case?' asked Justice for the petitioner, senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan and advocate Mandeep Kalra contended that the policy amounted to an unconstitutional reservation for men. They highlighted that their client, Arshnoor Kaur, had scored higher than several selected male candidates. The plea also sought directions to publish the combined merit list to ensure transparency. The court, while reserving its verdict, expressed its satisfaction with the petitioner's claim. 'Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by the petitioner no.1, Arshnoor Kaur. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to initiate whatever action is required for the purpose of her induction in the next available training course for appointment as Judge Advocate General (JAG),' the bench InTrending Reel advertisementIN THIS STORY#Supreme Court

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store