A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case deals with the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) to Women Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) in the Indian Navy, particularly addressing procedural anomalies and prejudices in the petitioner’s consideration. The Supreme Court reiterated the binding precedent in Union of India vs. Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja ([2020] 10 SCR 433; (2020) 13 SCC 1), directing that the petitioner’s eligibility for PC be assessed independently and fairly. The Court employed Article 142 to enforce justice, emphasizing the petitioner’s unique position as the sole serving JAG Branch officer of her batch. Procedural fairness, gender equality in the armed forces, and adherence to judicial mandates are key themes.

Keywords: Permanent Commission, Short Service Commission, Women Officers, Indian Navy, Judicial Precedent.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: CDR Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India and Others
ii) Case Number: Review Petition (Civil) No. 1036 of 2023
iii) Judgment Date: 26 February 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, and Hima Kohli, J.
vi) Author: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 820; 2024 INSC 147
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Article 142 of the Constitution, Navy Act 1957, and Regulations under the Indian Navy’s Policy Letters
ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly. However, AFT directions (2022) contradicted binding judicial precedents.
x) Case is Related to: Service Law, Gender Equality, Armed Forces Policies

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a Short Service Commission Officer (SSCO) in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch of the Indian Navy, was denied PC on the basis of vacancies and procedural constraints. Earlier, the Supreme Court had clarified in Annie Nagaraja that all serving SSCOs, irrespective of prospective policy restrictions, are entitled to consideration for PC. Despite this precedent, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) introduced new directives that indirectly caused prejudice to the petitioner, necessitating a review.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner joined the Indian Navy as an SSCO in the JAG Branch in 2007.
2. She was promoted to Lieutenant (2009) and Lieutenant Commander (2012), with two extensions of service until August 2021.
3. The Supreme Court judgment in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja ([2020] 10 SCR 433) explicitly allowed women SSCOs in Education, Law, and Logistics cadres to be considered for PC, lifting statutory bars and quashing restrictive provisions.
4. Despite eligibility, the petitioner’s case was not considered on merit, citing vacancy issues.
5. The AFT, in 2022, introduced procedural hurdles by grouping the petitioner with officers from 2011 and 2014 batches for consideration.
6. The petitioner filed a review petition, challenging the AFT’s interpretation as contrary to the Supreme Court’s binding directions.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the petitioner’s exclusion from the standalone consideration for PC violates the Annie Nagaraja precedent.
2. Whether procedural changes by AFT in 2022 were ultra vires of judicial directions.
3. Whether grouping the petitioner with subsequent batches caused prejudice, undermining principles of natural justice.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Counsel emphasized that the petitioner’s case was uniquely tied to her batch and deserved standalone consideration.
2. Argued that grouping with later batches diluted her right to fair evaluation under Annie Nagaraja.
3. Highlighted procedural prejudice due to reliance on uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
4. Contended that proportional vacancy creation, as mandated by AFT, contradicted Supreme Court directives.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Counsel for the Union of India argued that grouping was necessary for fairness across batches.
2. Justified reliance on sealed-cover documents and ACRs, claiming no procedural anomalies.
3. Emphasized institutional constraints like vacancy limitations in implementing PC considerations.

H) JUDGMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. The Supreme Court held that procedural fairness must align with Annie Nagaraja.
2. Grouping the petitioner with later batches introduced conditions absent in prior judicial mandates, violating principles of natural justice.
3. Directed independent and standalone reconsideration of the petitioner’s case by a Selection Board.

b. OBITER DICTA

1. The Court emphasized that judicial precedents must guide administrative decisions.
2. Affirmed that remedies under Article 142 ensure substantial justice, particularly in gender equality issues.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Standalone Reconsideration: The petitioner’s case to be independently assessed without external influences.
2. Vacancy Proportionality: Vacancies to be adjusted without setting future precedents.
3. ACR Exclusion: Uncommunicated ACRs to be excluded from evaluation.
4. Timeline: Final decision to be completed by April 15, 2024.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces judicial consistency in service law and gender equality. The case underlines the necessity of robust procedural safeguards and adherence to Supreme Court directives in administrative decisions affecting armed forces personnel.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja ([2020] 10 SCR 433; (2020) 13 SCC 1).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India – Article 142.
2. Navy Act 1957 – Section 9(2).
3. Indian Navy Regulations – Chapter IX, Part III, Regulation 203.