Supreme Court (file photo)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) to women Short Service Commission (SSC) officers in the armed forces stems from a flawed and discriminatory evaluation system, especially the way their performance was evaluated.While delivering its verdict, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh said that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of women officers were often evaluated carelessly, thereby reducing their chances of securing PC.According to Live Law, the bench said, “The ACR of the appellants was written with the presumption that they would not make career progress. The overall merit was adversely affected.”The bench further said, “The model was rational, non-discriminatory and was implemented as a one-time measure. The failure of the respondents to disclose the evaluation criteria etc. has adversely affected the authorities.”The decision comes after a protracted legal battle in which women officers had challenged the criteria used to evaluate them, arguing that it puts them at a disadvantage compared to their male counterparts.During the last hearing, the Center had denied the allegations of bias. It also submitted that after the 2022 approval, women officers are now being inducted through the National Defense Academy, and those who complete the training will be directly awarded PCs.Earlier reserving its judgment, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant was informed by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that structural changes have already been initiated to address gender disparities in the forces.However, the court remained critical of the evaluation process. During the hearing, it raised questions as to why women and men were assessed differently despite undergoing similar training and work.“How can there be two criteria based on gender? Is there a different format for evaluation of SSC women officers and male officers? Is the format different for SSC officers and those in the Permanent Commission?” The bench had asked.Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for 13 women officers, argued that their ACRs were carelessly classified and, in some cases, frozen before they were eligible for PC in 2020. In contrast, male officers continued to be evaluated with PC in mind.He pointed to the service records of officers like Lt Col Vanita Padhi, Lt Col Chandni Mishra and Lt Col Geeta Sharma, who had served in UN missions, high altitude areas and counter-insurgency operations. Despite holding key operational roles, including ‘criteria appointments’ in difficult areas, their contribution was not fully recognized in their appraisal reports, unlike similar postings held by male officers.The court said that such differential treatment could violate the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15, and reflect entrenched biases within the system. Guruswamy also said that many women officers were denied pension and medical benefits proportionate to their service conditions.The petitioners relied on a 2020 Supreme Court judgment that had directed the Army to grant PC to women officers and held that excluding them from command roles was unfair and hindered career progression.Since then, the court has passed several orders expanding the scope of PC for women in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.The case also included arguments from serving and retired officers, as the court examined similar concerns across different branches of the armed forces.