The Armed Forces: Women’s Fight for their Right to Fight

Share & spread the love

 

Introduction

The reality of the echoes of gender justice in the public domain is brought to light by the deep-rooted and subliminal superiority of patriarchal notions that are inculcated in our minds since birth through socialization. Drawing an analogy akin to that of the functioning of ascribed statuses, the advocates of misogyny use the theory of biological differences as a shield to justify differential treatment based on sex. The propagation of exclusionist ideas whereby women are curtailed from making active contributions in the fields of their own choice are based on archaic notions which are rooted in set gender roles.

The armed forces are among the most respectable lines of work for their role in safeguarding the territorial integrity and keeping the masses safe from unimaginable terrors. However, its failure to recognize women as capable of undertaking positions of responsibility equal to that of men reinforces orthodox ideals of women having to rely on their male-counterparts for their protection and safeguard. 

Women’s position in the Armed Forces: A Chequered History

Three years post-Independence, the Army Act of 1950 was enforced, which provided against the eligibility of women in the regular armed forces, that is, in combat related roles, as per Section 12 of the Act. The enrollment of women thereof in other departments of army was left solely to the Union government’s discretion. Women’s commission in the army was limited to nursing, dental and medical roles until the year 1992 when through the issuance of a notification the Centre allowed for their enrollment in several streams of the Indian army such as the Short Service Commission, Judge Advocate General’s Department, Intelligence Corps, Army Service Corps, Education Corps, Regiment of Artillery etc.

The journey in the coming years was focused on the induction of females in the permanent commission, where the drive for gender parity was initiated by Advocate Babita Puniya in 2003 birthing a decade long legal battle. Puniya filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the limitation in the tenure of service for women military officers, which was in response extended by the Minister of Defense to 14 years.

Following the resistance of the defense services in allowing permanent commission to women, other petitions, including those by Major Leena Gaurav and Lieutenant Colonel Seema Singh, were clubbed with Puniya’s by the Apex Court. The Union’s arguments in this respect relied upon the following contentions:

  1. Delhi High Court’s order to grant permanent commission to women in armed services runs in dissonance with Sections 10 and 12 of the Army Act, 1950.
  2. Permanency in the recruitment of women is met by practical issues such as the need for vast infrastructural changes to suit female hygiene needs, differences in their physical capabilities when compared to men, increased threat of abuse by enemy on the field and the marital and childcare obligations that women have to tend to.
  3. Such inclusion was cited to upheave the very structure on which the armed forces was based and disrupt unit cohesion.
  4. An inquiry by a committee indicated that the cadre of commissioned male officers prefer to be supported by a supplementary cadre.
  5. Pensionable services were cited as more viable options for women officers who worked in the force for more than 14 years.

Raising questions about the unequal treatment meted to women despite their display optimum skills and capabilities suited for their duties, Union’s non-compliance with the Delhi High Court Order, which directed it to vest the women officers with all consequential benefits of pensions and promotions accrued to male permanent commission officers, was criticized.

Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi brought to the notice of the Court the fact that women have been exposed to risky warzones, field areas and force headquarters since the beginning and therefore, denial of promotion to deserving women officers cannot be sustained merely on grounds of it being a policy decision. Further, the duties discharged by women officers stand at par with that of their male colleagues and their contribution towards the service of the nation cannot be shrugged off by restricting their recruitment to staff appointments.

 Therefore, in recognition of women’s contribution as being beyond reproach, the learned judges of the Apex Court remedied the fallacy in the Centre’s proposal of keeping senior women officers who have crossed 14 years of service outside the ambit of promotion to permanent commission. In effect, in affirmation of the Delhi High Court judgement, all women officers serving on the Short Service Commission were held to be eligible for recruitment to permanent commission.

Contemporary challenges: A Quest for true equality

The landmark judgement pronounced in The Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs Babita Puniya & Ors, despite its potholed trajectory, was successful in initiating a wave of change. The next leap in the direction of just inclusion of women in the force was taken by Kush Kalra through filing of a petition seeking the Court’s permission to allow women to give the NDA exam. At the heart of the petition lied the spirit of safeguarding constitutional values embodied by Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 16 (equal opportunities in matters of public employment) and 19 (freedom to practice a profession) from infringement by the sexist values surrounding the legislation that forbade eligible women candidates from joining the National Defence Academy. 

Ruling in favour of the petitioner, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy issued an interim order which allowed women candidates to take part in the examinations conducted by the NDA. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was charged with the duty of publicising the interim orders so as to translate the order into benefit at the ground level. Moving further with the motive of admitting women in other army educational institutions, the Court discussed the plausibility of inclusion of women in Rashtriya Indian Military College (RIMC).

Conclusion

The judicial pronouncement in the aforementioned cases is illustrative of the commitment of the Indian judiciary to justice-oriented change and development. These decisions are also reflective of the recognition that has been long overdue to women in the armed forces. Rights are merely words on paper unless translated to on-ground functioning. Similarly, the intentional exclusion of women from enrolment into services of their choice is a remark on the impending progress of the legislations that prevail in the Indian territory in opposition to guaranteed fundamental rights.

Related Posts:


Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the coolest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.