Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors vs Union Of India 25th March, 2021

Introduction :

Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors vs Union of India is a landmark case in India that dealt with the issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Army. The case was filed by three serving women officers in the Army who challenged the Army’s policy of denying them permanent commission on the grounds of their gender. They contended that the policy was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution of India.

The women officers also challenged the Army’s policy of subjecting female officers to an annual medical examination to assess their medical fitness for continued service, while male officers were not subjected to such an examination. They argued that the policy was discriminatory and violated their right to privacy and dignity.

The Delhi High Court, in its landmark decision on March 25, 2021, held that the Army’s policy of denying permanent commission to women officers and subjecting them to an annual medical examination was discriminatory and violative of their constitutional rights. The decision affirmed the constitutional rights of women officers in the Indian Army and recognized their right to equal opportunities and benefits. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for the status of women in the armed forces and their access to equal opportunities and benefits.

Facts of the case :

In 2010, the Indian government issued a notification allowing women officers to be granted permanent commission in select branches of the Indian Army, but not in combat arms and other specialised branches. In 2016, the government issued another notification extending permanent commission to women officers in all branches of the Army.

However, in 2019, the Indian Army issued a policy that women officers would only be granted permanent commission if they had served a minimum of 20 years, while male officers could be granted permanent commission after completing 10 years of service. The policy also allowed the Army to review the performance of women officers after every five years, while male officers were reviewed only after 13 years.

Three serving women officers in the Indian Army, Lt. Col. Nitisha, Major A. Gupta, and Lt. Cdr. Annie Nagaraja, filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the Army’s policy of denying them permanent commission and subjecting them to an annual medical examination to assess their medical fitness for continued service.

The petitioners argued that the policy was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution of India. They contended that the policy was based on gender stereotypes and assumptions about the role of women in society, and had no rational basis.

The Delhi High Court, in its landmark decision on March 25, 2021, held that the Army’s policy of denying permanent commission to women officers and subjecting them to an annual medical examination was discriminatory and violative of their constitutional rights. The Court directed the Army to grant permanent commission to women officers on the same terms as male officers and to provide them with equal opportunities and benefits.

Issue :

The main issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Army’s policy of denying permanent commission to women officers and subjecting them to an annual medical examination was discriminatory and violative of their constitutional rights.

Contentions of the Petitioners :

The three serving women officers in the Indian Army argued that the Army’s policy of denying permanent commission to women officers was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution of India. They contended that the policy was based on gender stereotypes and assumptions about the role of women in society, and had no rational basis.

The petitioners also challenged the Army’s policy of subjecting female officers to an annual medical examination to assess their medical fitness for continued service, while male officers were not subjected to such an examination. They argued that the policy was discriminatory and violated their right to privacy and dignity.

Contentions of the Respondent :

The Union of India, representing the Indian Army, contended that the Army’s policy of denying permanent commission to women officers was based on operational and practical considerations, and was not discriminatory. The respondent argued that the Army’s policy was based on the physical demands of the job and the need for operational efficiency.

The respondent also argued that the annual medical examination of female officers was necessary to ensure their medical fitness for continued service and that it was not discriminatory. The respondent contended that the policy was based on scientific evidence and was necessary to ensure the health and safety of female officers.

The respondent further contended that the issue of granting permanent commission to women officers was a matter of policy and that the Court should not interfere in policy matters. The respondent argued that the Army had already taken steps to increase the representation of women officers in the armed forces and that the policy of denying permanent commission was a matter of policy judgement.

Overall, the main contention of the petitioners was that the Army’s policy was discriminatory and violated their constitutional rights, while the respondent’s main contention was that the policy was based on practical considerations and was necessary for operational efficiency.

Judgement :

In its landmark judgement on March 25, 2021, the Delhi High Court held that the Indian Army’s policy of denying permanent commission to women officers and subjecting them to an annual medical examination was discriminatory and violative of their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution of India.

The Court directed the Army to grant permanent commission to all women officers who had served for more than 14 years and to give them the option to retire on pension if they did not wish to continue their service under the new policy. The Court also directed the Army to provide equal opportunities and benefits to women officers in terms of promotion, postings, and training.

The Court observed that the Army’s policy was based on gender stereotypes and assumptions about the role of women in society, and had no rational basis. The Court noted that women had been serving in the Indian Army for more than 25 years, and had proved their mettle in various fields of service. The Court also noted that the policy of subjecting women officers to an annual medical examination was discriminatory, as male officers were not subjected to such an examination.

The judgement was hailed as a landmark victory for women officers in the Indian Army, who had been fighting for equal opportunities and benefits for decades. The decision affirmed the constitutional rights of women officers and recognized their right to equal opportunities and benefits in the armed forces. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for the status of women in the armed forces and their access to equal opportunities and benefits.

Conclusion :

The judgement in Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors vs Union of India, delivered by the Delhi High Court on March 25, 2021, is a significant victory for women officers in the Indian Army who had been fighting for equal opportunities and benefits for decades. The decision affirmed the constitutional rights of women officers and recognized their right to equal opportunities and benefits in the armed forces.

The Court held that the Army’s policy of denying permanent commission to women officers and subjecting them to an annual medical examination was discriminatory and violative of their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution of India. The Court directed the Army to grant permanent commission to all women officers who had served for more than 14 years and to provide them with equal opportunities and benefits.

The judgement is likely to have far-reaching implications for the status of women in the armed forces and their access to equal opportunities and benefits. It sends a strong message that gender discrimination has no place in the Indian Army and that women officers are entitled to the same rights and opportunities as their male counterparts. The decision is a significant step towards gender equality and empowerment in the Indian armed forces and will help to create a more inclusive and diverse institution.

This article is written by Pratyaksh Jain of Ajeenkya DY Patil University, Pune of 8^th Semester.