Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Arbitrary No More: Supreme Court Orders Overhaul of Army's Promotion Criteria for Women Officers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision dated November 3, 2023, the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, has directed a reassessment for the promotion of women officers in the Indian Army to the rank of Colonel. The apex court, while addressing the grievances of women officers regarding their non-empanelment for promotion, observed, “The nub of the dispute in the present case relates to the manner in which the CRs of the women officers were assessed... the manner in which the cut off has been applied for reckoning CRs of the women officers for empanelment as Colonels is arbitrary.”

The bench, which also included Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, found that the process used to evaluate the Confidential Reports (CRs) for the promotion of women officers post their Permanent Commission (PC) was not in line with the established policy framework or the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha vs Union of India.

The Supreme Court’s decision rectifies the arbitrariness in the cutoff dates for CRs, which were deemed contrary to the principles laid down in Nitisha’s case and the policy directives of the Army itself. “Such an approach does disservice to the need to provide justice to the women officers who have fought a long and hard battle before this Court,” the bench remarked.

The Court has ordered the convening of a Special No 3 Selection Board within a fortnight from the date of the order, ensuring that all women officers, except those already empaneled, will be reconsidered for promotion.

Date of Decision: November 3, 2023

Nitisha and Others VS Union of India and Others     

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/06-Nov-2023-Nitisha-Vs-UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News