NITISHA AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 03-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 513 : 2023 INSC 985
513
CASE DETAILS
NITISHA AND OTHERS 
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1913 of 2022)
In 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1109 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 03, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The issue pertains to the women oﬃ  cers of 
the Indian Army, who were granted Permanent Commission in pursuance 
of the judgment of this Court in *Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha and Others 
vs Union of India and Others, are aggreived by the non-empanelment for 
promotion to the rank of Colonel by selection. 
Armed forces – Women oﬃ  cers – Promotion to the rank of Colonel 
by selection – Women oﬃ  cers granted Permanent Commission-PC 
pursuant to *Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha v Union of India’s case, 
aggreived by the non-empanelment for promotion to the rank of Colonel 
by selection – Plea that all the Conﬁ dential Reports-CRs of women 
oﬃ  cers commencing from the 1992 batch onwards until 2005 not duly 
considered and the more recent CRs excluded from consideration:
Held: Manner in which the cut oﬀ  was applied for reckoning CRs of 
the women oﬃ  cers for empanelment as Colonels is arbitrary, since the CRs 
for several years were kept out of reckoning altogether – Attitude was to 
ﬁ nd some way to defeat the just entitlement of the women oﬃ  cers – Such an 
approach does disservice to the need to provide justice to the women oﬃ  cers 
– Manner in which the applicants have been denied empanelment for the post 
of Colonel on a selection basis is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental 
principles of fairness – Whole approach is contrary to both the judgment of 
this Court in *Nitisha case as well as the policy framework laid down by the 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
Army authorities – Thus, issuance of direction to reconvene Special No 3 
SB afresh within the stipulated period for all the women oﬃ  cers who were 
considered by the earlier Special No 3 SB (except for those oﬃ  cers already 
been empaneled) – Constitution of India – Art 14.[Paras 21-23]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
*Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha and Others vs Union of India and Others 
(2021) 15 SCC 125 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application 
No.1913 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1109 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2021 in W.P. (C) No.1109 
of 2020 of the Supreme Court of India.
With
Miscellaneous Application No.246 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) 
No.1109 of 2020.
Appearances:
R. Venkataramani, AG, Ms. V. Mohana, Huzefa Ahmadi, R. 
Balasubramanian, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advs., Mrs. Sneha Bdtwe, 
Ms. Bhavya Pande, Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, 
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Chitvan Singhal, Ms. 
Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Kartikay Agrawal, 
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Seema Bengani, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adit 
Khorana, Subodh Patil, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Annirudh Sharma II, 
Aman Shukla, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Chinmayee Chandra, Rajan Kumar 
Chourasia, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Harish Pandey, Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Liz Mathew, 
Anant Vijay Palli, Nikhil Palli, Deepak Goel, Anas Tanwir, Sudhanshu S. 
Pandey, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Samyak Gangwal, Rohin Bhansali, Ms. 
Tanya Srivastava, Nishant Pandey, Ms. Ayushi Mishra, Ms. Lothungbeni 
T Lotha, Yimyanger Longkumer, Ms. Chitrandga Rastravara, Vaibhav 
Dwivedi, Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjai Shekhawat, Ms. Paridhi Arya Advs. 
for the appearing parties.
515
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR. 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 Others1. 
2. The grievance before this Court is by women oﬃ  cers of the Indian 
Army, who have been granted Permanent Commission2 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 Branch of the Army Headquarters setting out the basis on which 
Conﬁ dential Reports4 would be considered for various Selection Board
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.