Soldiers of the Indian Army women patrol in Sadhna Pass in the Kupwara district. | Photo Credit: PTI
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 6, 2025) began to hear the requests of officers of the army of women with short service commissions (SSC), who claim to be rejected by permanent commissions due to discrimination with their male counterparts.
Judge Surya Kant’s bench, Ujjjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh began to hear petitions filed by two batch officers, those who served and those that were released from service.
The Supreme Court said that after military officers, it would have heard supplications from female naval officers, followed by women’s officers in the Air Force, which also question the rejection of permanent commissions.
“Systematic Discrimination”
The leaders of the Huzef Ahmadi, Menaka Guruswama, V. Mohan and other lawyers represented officers of the SSC woman who claimed that there was systematic discrimination in their provision of permanent commissions. Women’s officers claimed that compared to their male counterparts, their annual confidential reports and rejection of equal opportunities were occasionally evaluated.
The bench proposed uniform instructions in awarding permanent commissions, but pointed out that it was necessary to remember factors such as specialized training. He also asked officers what they consider to be the basis for the evaluation of permanent commissions.
Inconclusive
The Supreme Court listened to more than 75 petitions that questioned the rejection of permanent commissions for various reasons. The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on August 7.
The best court stated that the provisional orders that would come earlier would remain in force, thereby restricting the center to the release of these officers from the service until the decision of their plea.
On 9 May, the court asked the Center not to release SSC women’s officers from the services of the SSC army that question the rejection of the Permanent Commission and asked the government not to “reduce her morality” in the “prevailing situation”.
‘Administrative decision’
Another general attorney Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared in the center, claimed that it was an administrative decision based on a politics that maintains the armed forces of the young.
Mrs. Guruswamy, who appeared for Colonel Geet Sharma, previously referred to the case of Colonel Sofia Qureshi, one of the two female officers who reported on the Sindoor operation on 7 and 8 May.
The officers relied on the sentence of the Supreme Court 2020, when the army was ordered to give them permanent commissions.
“Absolute exclusion of non -burnable”
In his decision of 17 February 2020, the Supreme Court stated that the absolute exclusion of women from all positions in the military, with the exception of employees’ tasks, was uncontrollable, and added that their blanket without a model for appointment without justification could not be imposed by law.
The Supreme Court, which allowed the permanent commissions to female officers in the army, said that the absolute ban on women of the short service commission to obtain nothing but the appointment of employees apparently did not fulfill the purpose of granting permanent commissions as a means of career progress in the army.
The Supreme Court also concerned the differences achieved by women’s officers and offer an example of success col. Qureshi.
Since the 2020 judgment, the Supreme Court has come to several orders on the question of permanent commissions to female officers in the armed forces, and similar orders were handed over in the case of the Navy, Indian Air Force and Coast Guard.
Published – 6. August 2025 9:16
