Wg Cdr AU Tayyaba (Retd) vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1271

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI, J. B. PARDIWALA
Wg Cdr AU Tayyaba (Retd) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dashrath Singh, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Negi, Adv. Mr. Shiv Autar Singh Sengar, Adv. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashvir Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Balasubramanina, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kr., Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mohd. Akhil, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

1. The batch of appeals which forms the subject matter of the present dispute emanates from a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 11 August 2011. The High Court in its lead judgment dated 12 March 2010 in Babita Puniya’s Case [Babita Puniya vs. Secretary and Another, (2010) 168 DLT 115 (DB)] issued specific directions for considering women Short Service Commissioned Officers¹ [“SSCOs”] in the Air Force and in the Army for the grant of Permanent Commission² [“PC”]. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Babita Puniya, a batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be instituted before the Delhi High Court seeking the benefit of the Babita Puniya judgment. The Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 11 August 2011 dismissed the batch of six writ petitions. The High Court held that the petitioners who had moved the specific proceedings were not covered by the directions contained in Paragraph 61 of the earlier decision in Babita Puniya. This batch of appeals has questioned the manner in which t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1271

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI, J. B. PARDIWALAWg Cdr AU Tayyaba (Retd) – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HIMA KOHLI, J. B. PARDIWALA
Wg Cdr AU Tayyaba (Retd) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent