Breaking Barriers; Journey of the Babita Puniya Case

Author: Sreya S, a student at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi


Abstract

This article examines the landmark Babita Puniya case, which catalyzed a monumental shift in India’s armed forces by securing Permanent Commission (PC) rights for women officers. Historically marginalized in non-combat roles due to societal stereotypes and institutional barriers, women officers challenged these norms through legal channels. The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision mandated equal opportunities for female officers in Short Service Commission (SSC), granting them PC benefits including promotions and pensions. This ruling not only dismantled gender biases within the military but also underscored the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Introduction

Every nation’s military services, including India’s, have been hesitant to employ more women in the workforce. There are numerous explanations for this. Some of these have merit, such as the claim that men and women differ in terms of their physical prowess and power. The societal prejudices that are deeply embedded in our society are the primary cause of the remaining issues.

However, discrimination against women also exists in the military forces for non-combat occupations. The way society views women is the main factor contributing to this. Men are viewed as powerful and are expected to fight on the front lines of battle. That has been the case from the beginning of time. 

People tend to forget that there are many other tasks besides front-line battles that need to be completed. Because women are biologically less physically capable of participating in the armed forces, they find it difficult to accept the idea that these forces are only about fighting physical wars. 

This article focuses on Babita Puniya’s case and how the historic ruling made it possible for women to be appointed to permanent positions in the Indian Armed Forces. Women faced discrimination on a number of fronts, and as a result, they were consistently excluded from all benefits, including financial incentives, pensions, and promotions. Even though they were qualified, they endured these unjust circumstances for a considerable amount of time until the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling.



Facts of the Case

According to Section 12 of the Indian Army Act of 1950, women cannot be enlisted in the army unless and until the central government grants permission. The Central Government of India permitted the recruitment of women in the Indian Armed Forces in 1992 for posts such as the Judge Advocate General’s Department, Intelligence Corps, Corps of Signals, Army Service Corps, Education Corps, and Short Service Commission (SCC). Prior to this, they were limited to using general medical, dental, and nursing services for military personnel. They applied for Permanent Commissions (PCs), which were exclusively granted to their male colleagues.

Babita Puniya, an advocate, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in 2003, requesting PC for women in the same manner as male officers. Since more Indian Army and Air Force personnel had filed for the same reason, their cases were combined with the Babita Puniya case. The Central government released a notification specifying that female officers are limited to a maximum of 14 years of service. Lt. Col. Seema Singh and Major Leena Gaurav sought the Supreme Court to request PC. AEC and the JAG department of all the military forces were among the specialized areas where women were awarded PC after a few years, in 2008.

Women who chose PCs were not given the same benefits in spite of this. As a result, numerous petitions were submitted and combined. The Delhi High Court ruled that women who met the requirements and had chosen to have PCs should be given them. The Army filed a second appeal, and the SC upheld the first one.

The Central Government notified the SC in 2018 that it was considering giving women who were hired through the SSC permanent commissions in the army. In 2019, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) declared that PC would be awarded to SSC female officers serving in the Army’s 8-arms or services. But it also said that after getting a PC, female officers would only be working on “various staff appointments only.”

Issues Presented

Should women be allowed to join the Indian Armed Forces on a permanent basis?
Is it appropriate to follow the instructions that the Indian government released on February 15, 2019?
What rules apply to women who serve as officers in the Indian Army?

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court received an appeal from the Union Government and the Ministry of Defence contesting the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling. They argued that the Army Act of 1950’s Sections 10 and 12 were not taken into account by the court. In light of these particular provisions, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the court. The appellants provided several other justifications, one of which was the inherent risks that the officers must endure while performing their duties. In insurgency and war zones, there won’t be any privacy at all, and the infrastructure wouldn’t be suitable for women, spouse posts, or anything else.

The comments explained the challenge of obtaining substitutes and included information concerning maternity and childcare leaves. As a consequence, the legitimate entitlements of male officers have had to be compromised. The postings’ living quarters and sanitation are appalling, lacking even the most basic amenities.

The respondents argued that since women had long supported their male counterparts in various capacities, including medical and technical help, being in situations like these was nothing new for them. Despite being eligible and deserving, the women undergo the same training as the men in the army and are evaluated based on their rank. Therefore, it is against Articles 14, 15, and 16 to deny them the same opportunities. They should also be entitled to retirement, financial, and promotional perks.

The right to equality of opportunity in government employment, the right against discrimination, and other fundamental rights were flagrantly violated in this instance. Having said that, the Army Act of 1950 Sections 10 and 12, along with Article 33, which grants the authority to limit army officials’ fundamental rights, served as a firewall against complaints against the aforementioned.

After considering the arguments made by both sides, the Supreme Court concluded that there had been long-standing discrimination against female officers in the Indian Armed Forces due to “sexist bias and service bias.” It concluded that the clauses were clearly against Article 14. The court also observed that while Article 33 allows for restrictions on Fundamental Rights within the military, it stipulates that these limitations must be necessary to ensure the effective discharge of duties and maintenance of discipline.

Here are the principal directives issued by the Supreme Court in this matter:
Female officers serving in the Short Service Commission (SSC) are eligible for Permanent Commission (PC), irrespective of whether they have completed 14 or 20 years of service.
These officers have the freedom to choose any specialization they prefer for Permanent Commission (PC), similar to their male counterparts, and will receive all corresponding benefits including pension, promotions, and financial incentives.
The terms “in various staff appointments only” and “on staff appointments only” in the notification should not apply to female officers seeking Permanent Commission (PC).
All female officers in the Short Service Commission (SSC) will also be entitled to continue in service until they reach the pensionable service period, receiving all associated benefits.
The plaintiff must take appropriate actions to adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision within three months of the pronouncement of this judgment.

Conclusion
This case has been regarded as a milestone decision since it would grant all female officials permanent commissions, making them eligible for promotion, rank, and pension benefits. It disregarded gender bias and sex preconceptions, placing women on an equal footing with men. Due to the PC scheme’s initial exclusivity to certain cadres and limited availability, it also revealed discrimination against women officers based on their class.
The appellants’ argument that women had physiological restrictions was rejected in favor of focusing only on the officers’ potential and abilities. Following this judgment, women can attain the highest ranks across all ten branches of the army to which they belong, eliminating previous blanket restrictions on their advancement to senior positions.

FAQ
What was the Babita Puniya case about?
The Babita Puniya case was a legal challenge that aimed to secure Permanent Commission (PC) rights for women officers in the Indian Armed Forces, who historically faced discrimination in terms of promotions, pensions, and career opportunities.
What were the key issues addressed in the Supreme Court’s judgment?
The Supreme Court addressed the fundamental issue of whether female officers should be granted Permanent Commission in the Indian Armed Forces and ruled on the implementation of guidelines released by the Indian government in 2019 regarding PC for women officers.
What were the main arguments presented by the Union Government and Ministry of Defence in this case?
The government argued against the granting of PC to women officers citing provisions in the Army Act of 1950 and concerns about operational challenges and infrastructure limitations in combat zones.

What were the outcomes of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Babita Puniya case?
The Supreme Court ruled that female officers in the Short Service Commission (SSC) should be eligible for PC, regardless of their years of service. They also mandated that women officers be allowed to choose any specialization for PC and receive all associated benefits without restrictions on their roles.
How did the Babita Puniya case impact gender equality in the Indian Armed Forces?
The case marked a significant milestone in dismantling gender biases within the military. It affirmed the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, allowing women officers to aspire to the highest ranks across all branches of the army and removing previous barriers to their advancement.