Nitisha vs Union of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 1129

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1129

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Nitisha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.
For the MA 1913/2022 : Mrs. Sneha Bdtwe, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR
For the MA 246/2023 : Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the MA 1913/2022 : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
For the MA D.23843/2023 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, AG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mr. Subodh Patil, Adv. Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma Ii, Adv. Mr. Seema Bengani, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Dr. N.visakamurthy, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Mr. Anant Vijay Palli, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Palli, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Samyak Gangwal, Adv. Mr. Rohin Bhansali, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nishant Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Mishra, Adv. Ms. Lothungbeni T Lotha, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumer, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Ms. Chitrandga Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat, Adv. Ms. Paridhi Arya, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

(Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.)

1. The issue which has been raised in a clutch of applications pertains to the implementation of the decision of this Court in Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha and Others vs Union of India and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 125.

2. The grievance before this Court is by women officers of the Indian Army, who have been granted Permanent Commission²[“PC”], in pursuance of the judgment of this Court. The issue in dispute relates to their non-empanelment for promotion to the rank of Colonel by selection.

3. Before analyzing the factual grievance, it would be appropriate to set out the policy framework.

4. On 7 October 2002, a communication was issued by the Military Secretary’s³[“MS”], Branch of the Army Headquarters setting out the basis on which Confidential Reports⁴[“CR”], would be considered for various Selection Boards⁵[“SBs”]. The title of the document is:

“Consideration of CRs for Selection Boards (SBs)”

5. Paragraph 3A of the letter deals with No 3 SB for promotion from the rank of Lieutenant Colonel to Colonel and No 4 SB for promotion from the rank of Maj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 1129

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRANitisha – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Nitisha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent