SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 306

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Yogendra Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Ms. S. Ambica, Adv. Ms. Maryam Junaid, Adv. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR Ms. Sridevi Panikkar, Adv. Mr. Pritesh Patni, Adv. Mr. Thamizhendhi, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Das, Adv. Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kavish Aggarwala, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pathak, Adv. Ms. Madhu Bala, Adv. Ms. Manju Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Uttam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Paras Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Mihika Suryavanshi, Adv. Ms. Manini Kaur, Adv. Mr. Amish Aggarwala, AOR Ms. Yashita Jain, Adv. Mr. Shubham Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Palli, Adv. Ms. Niyati Razdan, Adv. Mr. Anish Venkatesh Bindlish, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vaidushya Parth, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Ashok, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Thanwani, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Amrita Panda, AOR Ms. Shivang Berry, Adv. Mr. Ruchir Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Khatri, AOR

Table of Content
1. background on appeals regarding permanent commission (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions raised by appellants in support of appeals (Para 6)
3. court's analysis of acr grading and its implications (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. evaluation of dynamic vacancy model and its fairness (Para 18 , 22 , 30 , 31)
5. failure to disclose criteria impacting fairness of selection process (Para 44 , 46)
6. court's conclusions and directions regarding the appeals (Para 52 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, CJI.

Applications for intervention are allowed, and the Applicants therein are directed to be impleaded as Intervenors.

2. The instant batch of appeals arises from a long and unsettled chapter in the service jurisprudence of the Indian Navy. It has been instituted by a group of roughly 25 Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs), the majority of whom are women seeking the grant of Permanent Commission (PC). At its core, this dispute does not concern mere instances of non-selection; rather, it calls for a detailed evaluation of the fairness and transparency of the process by which officers, after long years of service, were assessed for career permanence.

3. In brief, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top