Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Background
Following the Court's earlier judgment in Lt. Col. Nitisha vs. Union of India (which had granted Permanent Commission to Women Short Service Commission Officers), a group of these women officers approached the Court again, this time complaining about how they were being considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel. They alleged that the Army's Selection Board had improperly excluded years of their recent service records (Confidential Reports) from consideration, applying old cut-off dates matched to their male batchmates' timelines rather than assessing their actual, more recent performance.
Decision Breakdown
The Court examined the Army's own policy circulars, which required that all service records after nine years be considered for such promotions, and found that the exclusion of many years of the women officers' records was arbitrary and not properly justified by the Army's stated reasoning about giving each officer three sequential "looks" for promotion. The Court held that this approach was contrary to both its earlier Nitisha judgment and the Army's own policy framework, and violated the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under Article 14. It rejected the Army's argument that there were insufficient vacancies, noting many vacancies remained unfilled. The Court directed the Army to reconvene the Selection Board within two weeks, using a common, fair cut-off date, while protecting officers already promoted from being disturbed.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will actively monitor and enforce compliance when institutions apply narrow or technical interpretations to defeat the substance of an earlier equality ruling: a right recognised in principle by a court must be implemented in a genuinely fair manner, not undermined through selective administrative procedure.