Case Brief: The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Ors.
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020):
📌 Case Brief
1. Case Title
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors.
2. Citation
(2020) INSC 145
3. Court
Supreme Court of India
4. Judgment Date
17 February 2020
5. Bench
Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi
6. Parties Involved
Petitioners: Babita Puniya and other women officers of the Indian Army
Respondent: Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Defence
7. Background
In 1992, the Indian government allowed women to join the Indian Army through the Short Service Commission (SSC) in select branches.
Over time, women officers sought Permanent Commissions (PCs) to ensure career progression, pension benefits, and command roles.
The Delhi High Court, in 2010, directed the government to grant PCs to women officers. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court's decision in 2011.
In February 2019, the government issued a policy granting PCs to women officers in certain branches, but with conditions that were challenged by the petitioners.
8. Issues
Whether the Union Government's policy granting PCs to women officers was discriminatory and violated their constitutional rights.
Whether the conditions imposed by the government for granting PCs to women officers were arbitrary and unjustified.
9. Arguments
Petitioners: Argued that the government's policy was discriminatory, as it imposed conditions not applicable to male officers, such as restrictions on command roles and limited eligibility based on age and service length.
Respondent: Contended that the policy was a matter of executive discretion and that the conditions were necessary for maintaining discipline and operational efficiency.
10. Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the government's policy was discriminatory and violated the constitutional rights of women officers.
The Court directed the Union Government to grant PCs to all eligible women officers, irrespective of their age or service length.
The Court emphasized that the restrictions on command roles and other conditions were based on gender stereotypes and lacked justification.
The government was ordered to implement the decision within three months and to grant all consequential benefits, including promotions and pension rights, to the affected officers.
11. Legal Principles
Article 14: Right to Equality
Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
Article 33: Power of Parliament to modify the application of fundamental rights to the armed forces
12. Impact
The judgment marked a significant step towards gender equality in the Indian Armed Forces.
It ensured that women officers have the same career progression opportunities as their male counterparts, including eligibility for command roles and pension benefits.
The decision highlighted the need to eliminate gender-based stereotypes in military policies and practices.
RELATED Blog
0 comments