New Delhi, May 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court has criticised the Indian Navy for not granting Permanent Commission (PC) to Commander Seema Chaudhary, a woman officer from the 2007 Short Service Commission (SSC) batch in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, despite clear directions given earlier by the top judiciary.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh took serious note of the Navy’s inaction, making it clear that the court’s previous direction to “consider” the officer’s case could not be used as an excuse to avoid action.
“Enough is enough… we give you one week to grant her Permanent Commission,” Justice Kant stated sternly during the hearing.
The case revolves around Commander Seema Chaudhary, who has faced prolonged legal battles and filed nearly five petitions seeking justice. Her counsel, Senior Advocate Rekha Palli, argued that while male officers are inducted directly into Permanent Commission, women officers are only taken in through Short Service Commission. She added that currently, there are no women JAG officers in the Navy.
After reviewing Chaudhary’s service record and performance reports, the court questioned why she was denied PC, especially when she was found fit in all respects.
In defence, Senior Advocate Dr. R. Balasubramanian, representing the Navy, pointed to three Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) that included adverse comments.
However, the court noted that these ACRs had already been overruled by the reviewing authority.
Justice Kant also criticised the bias reflected in the ACRs, implying a male superior had unfairly assessed the officer’s work. “She was graded well in all parameters, and one officer’s personal opinion cannot undo her service,” he remarked.
The bench reminded the Navy that a 2024 Supreme Court order had already directed reconsideration of the officer’s case under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court had ordered that Chaudhary’s case be decided independently, as she was the only 2007-batch JAG woman officer eligible for PC.
The judgment also permitted the Navy to proportionally increase the number of PC vacancies to accommodate her, ensuring that no other officer would be displaced and that this move would not set a precedent.
Justice Kant reminded the Navy’s counsel, “This is not about ego. The 2024 judgment has reached finality. It cannot be ignored at the whims of authorities.”
The petitioner alleged that her PC was being denied as retaliation for a workplace harassment complaint she filed against a male officer.
A Board of Inquiry reportedly found merit in her complaint, yet she was transferred within a day of filing it, while the accused officer remained in the same post.
On the request of Dr. Balasubramanian to seek further instructions, the court agreed to list the matter for further hearing in the first week of July.
UNI SNG SSP