Aishwarya Rathore-
Published on August 02, 2021 at 2:03 PM
Supreme Court refused to hear a Miscellaneous Application (MA) submitted by the Union of India seeking clarifications in the decision that directed the grant of Permanent Commission for women officers in the Armed Forces.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah expressed unhappiness at the “fashion” of filing MAs seeking clarification after a Judgment is delivered.
The bench stated, “If there is any grievance concerning the Judgment, the appropriate remedy is to seek its review.”
ASG Balbir Singh replied that MA is filed seeking a “little clarification” to avoid another round of fresh litigation.
The MA was filed in response to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Lt Col Nitisha and others vs. Union of India and others, which declared the Indian Army’s evaluation criterion for granted permanent commission to women SSC officers to be “arbitrary and irrational.”
The Court ruled that the evaluation criteria diluted the impact of the decision in the case of Babita Punia vs. Union of India, which stated that women officers are entitled to Permanent Commission in the Armed Forces.
The Supreme Court ruled on March 25, that all officers other than non-adoptees officers shall be considered for a permanent commission based on terms, within two months.
The Court stated, “Once we have delivered a Judgment on broad parameters, we cannot examine individual cases. You go to Tribunals for individual grievances. Armed Forces Tribunals are capable of interpreting our Judgment.”
The Bench clarified, it cannot give interim protection to individuals in MAs. It allowed the MAs to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedies before the Armed Forces Tribunals.
The Bench added in its order that the Tribunal should hear the applications expeditiously.
Also Read: Centre sanctions permanent commission to women officers in Indian Army