In Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, Supreme Court held that indirect discrimination faced by women SSC officers seeking Permanent Commission in the Indian Army. The Court found that seemingly neutral criteria for selection disproportionately disadvantaged women, excluding them from permanent service. It emphasized equality under Articles 14 and 15(1) and formally recognized the doctrine of indirect discrimination in Indian law. This landmark ruling highlighted gender fairness, required policy reviews in the Army, and advanced principles of equality and non-discrimination in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Explore other Landmark Judgements.

Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India Facts

The case highlighted systemic gender discrimination, focusing on unfair evaluation criteria for women SSC officers seeking Permanent Commission. The following are the brief facts of the case of Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India:

Implementation of Babita Punia Case

The petition sought to implead the judgment of the Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) which granted women of the Indian Army the right to request Permanent Commission (PC) after serving on Short Service Commissions (SSC). The Court recognised their desire for equality and noted their 10-year struggle for parity with men. It all started with the 2003 filing of a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which led to the Babita Puniya judgment of February 17, 2020.

Government's Failure to Implement

The Union Government is failing to comply with the instructions of the Delhi High Court judgment despite no stay. The petitioner filed a writ petition due to the non-implementation of the rules.

Petitioner's Contentions

The petitioners claimed that discriminatory practices continued even after the judgment in Babita Puniya, which was in favour of grant of PCs to WSSCOs in the Army. She stated that the implementation of the post-judgement directives was flawed, creating systemic dysfunctionality and unfair treatment of woman officers. The following were the key points of Contention in Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India:

• Flawed medical evaluation criteria.
• Arbitrary dependence on Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
• Lack of transparency in declaring PC vacancies by the Central Government.

The petitioner emphasized gender-based disparities between male and female officers, highlighting how the existing processes inadequately considered physiological changes and career advancement for women officers.

Overall Petition

The petitioner in Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India seeks an end to gender discrimination, and the effective execution of the Babita Puniya judgment which sought equal opportunity to women officers in the Indian Army. 

Respondent’s Contentions

In Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, the respondents claimed that the criteria for granting Permanent Commission to women SSC officers are fair and gender-neutral. According to them, the medical fitness standards and dependence on ACR were important tools to assess the suitability of an officer for PC. Also, they defended the transparency of the selection process and until it was claimed the criteria applied were in line with the Army’s operational needs According to the respondents, the policies are not discriminatory and are merit- and efficiency-based.

Download Free PDF on Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India

The case of Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India examined indirect discrimination in granting Permanent Commission to women SSC officers, focusing on equality, fairness, and systemic biases. The following are the issues addressed in Lt Col Nitisha vs Union Of India:

• Whether the criteria for granting Permanent Commissions (PCs) to women officers result in indirect discrimination?
• Whether requiring women officers to achieve a specific percentage score and surpass the lowest-scoring male officer awarded a PC constitutes indirect discrimination?
• Whether the inclusion of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) in the PC assessment process disproportionately disadvantages women officers?
• Whether the medical requirements for granting PCs indirectly discriminate against women officers?
• Whether the implementation of the Babita Puniya judgment aligns with Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution?

Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India Legal Provision

The Lt Col Nitisha v Union Of India case invoked Articles 14, 15(1), 16, and 32 of Indian Constitution emphasizing equality, non-discrimination, and the enforcement of fundamental rights. The following are the analysis of these provisions:

• Article 14 of Indian Constitution: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws

In Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, Article 14 played a crucial role as it guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The Supreme Court used Article 14 of Indian Constitution to address indirect discrimination faced by women SSC officers seeking Permanent Commission in the Indian Army. It emphasized that seemingly neutral criteria, such as medical standards and reliance on Annual Confidential Reports, disproportionately disadvantaged women officers, violating their right to equality.

• Article 15(1) of Indian Constitution: Prohibits discrimination on grounds such as gender

In Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, Article 15(1) was significant since it forbids gender discrimination. The Supreme Court relied on this provision to address indirect discrimination against women SSC officers seeking to be Permanent Commission in the Indian Army.

• Article 16 of Indian Constitution: Guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment.

In Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, Article 16 was highly relevant as it guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. The Supreme Court examined whether the criteria for granting Permanent Commission (PC) to women SSC officers violated this provision.

• Article 32 of Indian Constitution: Right to approach the Supreme Court

In the case of Lt Col Nitisha v. Union of India, Article 32 was relevant because it allows people to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Women SSC officers exercised Article 32 of Indian Constitution as a means to dispute the discrimination placed upon them concerning the decision for granting permanent commissions in the Indian Army.

• Article 142 of Indian Constitution: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders to ensure complete justice

In the case of Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India, Article 142 of Indian Constitution was invoked, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any orders for complete justice to be rendered. The Court used this provision to deal with systemic gulf discrimination. This Article was centered on tackling indirect discrimination and ensuring gender equality in the grant of permanent commission to women officers.

The judgment in Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India addressed systemic gender discrimination, emphasizing equality, fairness, and the enforcement of constitutional rights for women officers.

• The Army's requirement to benchmark women SSCOs against the lowest-merit male officer for PC grant was deemed arbitrary and irrational. This was not enforced following the Babita Puniya ruling.
• Women officers scoring at least 60% in the Special No. 5 Selection Board (September 2020) were entitled to PC, provided they met medical, disciplinary, and vigilance criteria.
• Medical criteria from the General Instructions (dated August 1, 2020) applied at the 5th or 10th year of service. Officers failing these were ineligible for PC.
• Reassessment of all WSSCO cases, including rejections on medical grounds, was ordered within one month, with PC grant orders to follow within two months.
• PCs already granted to WSSCOs remained unaffected.
• WSSCOs ineligible for PC were awarded one-time benefits as per the Babita Puniya decision.
• Consequential benefits, such as time-scale promotions, were to be granted within three months.
• The review of evaluation methods and ACR cut-offs for future batches to avoid unequal impact on women officers.
• Serving WSSCOs were permitted to continue to serve until the directions of the Court are fully implemented along with salaries and other benefits.

Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India Verdict

The Supreme Court in Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India has ruled that the Army’s criteria for the evaluation of policies was systemically biased against the petitioners. The medical evaluation process for women officers was one-sided because of the Babita Puniya case. The assessment did not acknowledge subsequent achievements and perpetuated discrimination-causing economic and psychological harm.

Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India Impact

The Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India case brought important changes for women officers in the Indian Army. It showed how some rules that seem fair can actually disadvantage certain groups—in this case, women. The court made the Army change its methods to remove unfair medical standards and improve the way officer reports were written. The case Lt Col Nitisha vs Union of India supported the idea of equal rights and fairness for everyone and became a strong example of fighting gender inequality in public jobs. It urged that organizations review their policies for fairness to all. 

Conclusion

The landmark case Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India formally recognized indirect discrimination as a significant violation of the Indian Constitution. The Court concluded that the criteria set by the Central Government constituted indirect or systemic discrimination against women officers and were deemed unconstitutional.