words per minute
31
rsingh
00:00
Speed
With
C.A. No. 2181 of 2020
@ SLP (C) No 30337 of 2016
With
C.A. Nos. 10225-10230 of 2016
With
C.A. No. 3359 of 2017
With
C.A. No. 5392 of 2019
With
C.A. No. 2177 of 2020
@ Diary No. 26406 of 2017
With
C.A. No. 2178 of 2020
@ Diary No 27060 of 2019
And With
C.A. No. 2179 of 2020
@ Diary No 27061 of 2019
2
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
Index
A Background of the dispute
A.1 Annie Nagaraja‘s case
A.2 Priya Khurana‘s case
B Statutory and Policy framework
C Submissions
D Preliminary Objection
E Validity of the policy letter dated 26 September 2008
F The stereotypical sailor
G Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
H Directions
A Background of the dispute
1. The present batch of Civil Appeals comes up for adjudication from two
decisions, the first in point of time being that of the High Court of Delhi and the
second, being that of the Armed Forces Tribunal1
.
A.1 Annie Nagaraja’s case
2. Six Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were instituted
before the Delhi High Court. The petitioners, seventeen in number, were women
officers who joined the Indian Navy as Short Service Commissioned2 Officers in
the Logistics and Air Traffic Controller3
cadres and the Education branch. Six of
them were officers in the Logistics cadre, nine in the Education branch and two in
the ATC cadre. Their grievance is that despite completing fourteen years of
service as SSC officers, they were not considered for the grant of Permanent
Commissions4
and were discharged from service.
3. The case which was set up before the High Court was that women SSC
officers of the Indian Army and Air Force had been granted PCs by the judgment
of the Delhi High Court in Babita Puniya v Union of India5
(―Babita Puniya‖).
The Air Force implemented the decision of the Delhi High Court. The Indian Army
was in appeal before this Court against the judgment in Babita Puniya. 4. The Union of India in the Ministry of Defence6
issued a policy letter dated
26 September 2008 granting PCs to SSC officers in all the three branches of the
Armed Forces. However, the offer was restricted to certain categories and was to
operate prospectively for the benefit of future batches inducted on SSCs after
January 2009. The Delhi High Court expressly noted that the denial of combat
roles to women was not in issue in the Writ Petitions. By its judgment dated 4
September 2015, the High Court issued the following directions:
―50.a) The claim of absorption in areas of operation not open
for recruitment of women officers cannot be sustained being a
policy decision.
b) The Short Service Commissioned Officers of the Navy
who had opted for PC and were not granted PC but instead
were granted extension of SSC and were not retired at the
time of filing of these Writ Petitions and had attained the age
of retirement during the pendency of the present petitions,
they shall be offered PC within a period of 6 weeks from the
date of this order. They shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits such as promotion and other financial benefits
subject to their medical fitness. However, their appointment to
the post of PC shall be subject to the final outcome of the said
SLP i.e. CC No. 10437/2010 title Secr. Ministry of Defence v.
Babita Puniya & Anr. pending consideration before the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court;
c) With respect to the petitioners who had attained the
age of superannuation prior to the filing of the Writ Petitions
by them the following directions are required to be issued:
1. The respondents shall reinstate these
petitioners within a period of six weeks from today on
their respective posts;