Govt showing no will to comply with SC verdict on permanent commission — women Army officers

Objections were raised against the government’s move to make Battle Physical Efficiency Test mandatory for all women officers, including those above 35, who were earlier exempt from it.

Representational image of women army officers outside the Supreme Court in New Delhi | Suraj Singh Bisht | ThePrint

New Delhi: Women Army officers Tuesday protested against the central government’s move to make the Battle Physical Efficiency Test (BPET) mandatory for all women officers, including those commissioned before 2009 and above 35 years of age, who were earlier exempt from it.   

The BPET is a series of tests that are meant to test the physical fitness of an officer or a jawan to perform military tasks.

Senior advocates Meenakshi Lekhi and Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the women officers, said it was an attempt to “whittle down by indirect oblique manner” the Supreme Court’s February judgment giving permanent commission to women officers in the Army, irrespective of their years in service.

The objections were raised before a bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud when it was hearing a central government application seeking six more months to implement the top court’s February verdict.

The government cited the ongoing pandemic and said it needed more time to finalise the policy on permanent commission to women officers. 

The Directorate General of Military Training (DGMT) of Army Headquarters, New Delhi, had issued a fresh BPET policy on 12 May. It supersedes directions issued in March 2011 that excused women officers who were commissioned before April 2009 and above 35 years of age from BPET.

According to the new order, accessed by ThePrint, women officers will be divided into three categories – below 30 years, 30-40 years and 40-45 years. Those falling in the third bracket will have to participate in a 5 km run for the BPET. 

Also, two types of rope tests, earlier restricted to only those below 30 years of age, have now been made compulsory for all women officers.

The lawyers argued that this move will ensure women in the higher age bracket, who have not been doing BPET due to the 2011 order, fail to clear the tests and be forced to leave.

Flagging the new BPET policy, advocates Lekhi and Arora also told the Supreme Court that there was no “will” on the government’s part to implement its February judgment.

Senior advocate R. Balasubramanium, however, assured the court on behalf of the government that the verdict will be followed “in letter and spirit”.  

“Discussions have been held; the policy is in advance stage. It is just a matter of time now. We would not have bothered you if the lockdown was not imposed,” he said.

The bench recorded Balasubramanium’s statement and gave one more month to the central government to comply with its February verdict.

On Lekhi and Arora’s submission, the bench also said it would prefer to wait for the permanent commission policy to be notified. “We are here. You can always come back to us (in case of a grievance),” the bench told them.

‘Govt reluctant to accept judgment’ 

The government’s application underlined that it could not comply with the top court’s February verdict because the Covid-19 pandemic has crippled administrative functioning in the ministry as well as the Army. Government offices have been shut and lack of staff made it very difficult to proceed with the compliance, it said.

Arora, however, claimed that the government was not keen to abide by the court’s orders.

“The government could function to come out with a new BPET policy but not start with a procedure on permanent commission. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) office re-opened on 16 April. It is a clear reflection of the ‘union’s reluctance’ to accept the judgment,” she said.  

For women officers, Arora contended, the modified BPET policy will have a significant impact on their promotion, which they have been entitled to after the Supreme Court’s verdict.

“They chose to amend the BPET to make the new physical test standards applicable on women officers, even to those who have served for more than 14 years. This reduces their chances for a promotion,” Arora submitted.

Lekhi, meanwhile, said directions should be issued to the government to produce the study on the basis of which a new BPET policy was notified. “The new tests under BPET were discontinued in 2011. Now they bring it in and ask the women officers to take it.”

‘No gender difference in terms of physical fitness’

Lekhi also informed the court about another order asking women officers to attend the Junior Command (JC) course at the Army War College in Mhow, Madhya Pradesh, which is to be held next month.

“In the absence of a permanent commission policy the Army cannot force women officers to attend the JC course,” she said.  

According to Arora, all women officers so far have been treated as short service commissioned officers. “They were never required to take physical training at that time. And now suddenly the Army wants them to take tests at the age of 45. There is no gender difference in terms of physical fitness,” she submitted.

A woman officer, also a petitioner before the top court, told ThePrint that inclusion of women officers above the age of 35 years for BPET was an attempt to reduce their chances at climbing up the ranks.

The officer also pointed out that the new directions were enforced after the top court gave a favourable ruling for permanent commission to women.

“Most of the women who benefit from this judgment fall in this age bracket (above 35 years) and have not been doing BPET in accordance with the 2011 order. The order does not even give time to the officers to prepare for the tests,” she added.