The Supreme Court, in an interim order issued on Wednesday, allowed women candidates to sit for the National Defence Academy (NDA) entrance exam scheduled for September 5, a year after its landmark decision granting permanent commission to women officers of the Indian Army serving under Short Service Commission.
A bench of Justices S K Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy asked the government to “take a constructive view of the matter,” stating that the “policy decision” to bar women from admission to the NDA was “based on gender discrimination,” and referred to the court’s ruling on February 17 last year allowing permanent commission for women officers.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Advocate Kush Kalra seeking directives to allow eligible female candidates to take the Union Public Service Commission’s NDA and Naval Academy examinations (UPSC).
The panel directed the UPSC to release a corrigendum in accordance with its interim directive and to “provide proper publicity so that the order’s objective is translated into effect.” It did, however, state that admission of female candidates would be contingent on the outcome of the petition.
“Why do you keep going in this direction? Even after Justice Chandrachud’s decision broadening the horizons and granting women permanent commission in the Army?… We find that absurd,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Ministry of Defence.
On February 17, 2016, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi urged the government to ensure that women Short Service Commission officers are awarded permanent commissions in the Army, including command positions.
NDA
The ASG stated that the NDA requires distinct training, but the bench stated that women are now permitted to serve in combat roles as well. While women fighter pilots are permitted in the Air Force, only 10 branches in the Army have been opened for them, according to Bhati.
The court stated that while the Navy and Air Force appeared to be more permissive in the topic, “the mindset is not changing only.” The Army could not be persuaded by the Solicitor General, who was arguing before the Supreme Court in the permanent commission case. Following that, the Supreme Court provided other opportunities, but none were taken advantage of. You did not legalize them either. You retained them for a long time but never gave them a permanent commission.”
The court instructed the administration to “begin with some tokenism” and to refrain from requiring constant judicial intervention. The bench stated that while the court “may not comprehend all complicated, technical components of your system,” “you are better placed to appreciate that.” It stated that recruiters “must comprehend” the broad idea of gender neutrality “and apply it in the context of your peculiarities.”
