Case Brief: The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors. | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Brief Facts of The Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya and Ors.

• In a PIL filed in February 2003, the Delhi High Court sought permanent commission for women officials in the military who were enrolled through the Short Service Commission (SSC).
• A strategic amendment in 2006 allowed SSC women officials to serve for a maximum of 14 years.
• In September 2008, the Center decided to grant permanent commission to SSC women officials in certain branches of the military.
• In March 2010, the Delhi High Court directed the Defense Ministry to extend permanent commission benefits to SSC women officials in the Air Force and Army who had opted for permanent commission but had not been granted the same.
• Subsequently, in May 2018, the Center indicated its consideration for providing permanent commission to SSC women officials in the Army.
• In February 2019, a notification was issued announcing the grant of permanent commission to new SSC officials in certain combat support arms/services.

Issues in Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya and Ors.

Arguments by the Parties

Arguments by the petitioner:

• Grant of Permanent Commissions: The discretion of granting commissions lies with the President of India as per Section 10 of the 1950 Act. Section 12 of the same Act reinforces the absence of a guaranteed option for Permanent Commissions for women. The President holds the authority to grant commissions, and no court can mandate this. The 2019 order focuses on training SSC women in specialized fields to avoid resource wastage for those already in service.
• Pensionary Benefits: Women are allowed to work after completing 14 years of service but cannot attain pension benefits until 20 years. Those with 20 years of service receive immediate pension benefits.
• Policy Considerations: Recruitment and grant of Permanent Commissions are seen as policy decisions under the exclusive domain of the executive, safeguarded by Article 33 of the constitution.
• Occupational Hazards: Women are not employed in combat roles due to inherent risks.
• Discrimination: Extra benefits like maternity leave are provided to women officers, which male counterparts do not receive.
• Ajay Vikram Singh Committee: Increasing cadre into Permanent Commissions might disrupt the organizational structure.
• Employment in Staff Appointments: Women officers are reinstated based on the Delhi High Court's orders to avoid potential administrative issues.
• Physiological Restrictions: Challenges like imprisonment, parenthood, and childcare are highlighted as constraints on the employability of women officers.

Arguments by the respondent:

• Shortage of Officers: Despite a shortage, trained women officers are being released due to gender discrimination.
• Battlefield Scenario: Duties assigned to women officers are comparable to those of male officers.
• Unit Cohesion: Resistance to accepting women as equal colleagues.
• National Security: Women are commissioned to sensitive areas despite not serving in combat roles.
• Pension and Retirement Benefits: Women officers with 14 years of service are denied these benefits.
• Discrimination Issues: Lack of professional growth opportunities, job security, and equal promotion policies are highlighted.
• Service Nature: Women officers in SSC roles have non-combat duties.
• Training and Duties: Women officers undergo similar training and have equivalent duties as male counterparts eligible for Permanent Commissions.

Judgement in the case of Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. Bar Association Pathankot

• The court's interpretation of section 12 of the Army Act highlights that the 2019 policy decision by the Union of India (UoI) permits Permanent Commission (PC) for women officers in ten different streams.
• This policy decision emphasizes the recognition of women officers' right to equality of opportunity, rooted in two key aspects:
  • The principle of non-discrimination based on gender, as enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
  • The guarantee of equal opportunities for all citizens in public employment under Article 16(1).
• The court critiqued the arguments presented by the UoI as perpetuating gender stereotypes and discrimination, particularly by assuming that women bear the sole responsibility of domestic duties. Additionally, the notion of an "inherent psychological difference" between men and women was deemed constitutionally flawed, as it implies that women are inherently inferior.

Present Status of the Judgement

• The implications of this judgement extend throughout India, affecting women officers nationwide.

Conclusion

• This significant ruling grants permanent benefits to all women officials, rendering them eligible for promotions, ranks, and pensions within the military.