<div>Within a span of five years, two judgments from Delhi High Court broke yet another glass ceiling by ensuring permanent commission to women in non-combat branches of Army, Air Force and Navy. Senior Advocate Rekha Palli who fought on behalf of the women officers in both the cases spoke to <em>Deccan Herald’s</em>Kalyan Ray about the two judgments, the deep-rooted resistance from the establishment and how she hopes these rulings would change the lives for women in uniform in future. Excerpts:<br /> <br />What’s the main message from the two judgments?<br /><br />The 2010 judgment was a landmark one that gave women officers hope as till then, nobody thought of granting them permanent commission in the armed forces. We had hoped with the passage of time, the armed forces will be more open, which did not happen. The Navy judgment gives even stronger message that women are here to stay and nobody can think of denying them equal opportunity. In the two judgments, the court also looked at several practical aspects of the problem. It is unfortunate that on the Republic Day, women contingent from three services marched on the Rajpath to showcase the women power to the world, but they were not awarded permanent commission in all branches.<br /> <br />The judgment on the Navy women officers’ case gave examples of women participating in combat role in the armed forces from other nations.<br /><br />Yes, this ruling is more prominent on pointing out new roles of women in the armed forces. And why not combat role as modern battle is heavily technology driven and women are technologically advanced.<br /><br />When you took up the case, as a lawyer what challenges you faced?<br /><br />I was astonished to see how women were treated in the armed forces. They were treated like guinea pig for an experiment. They (MoD and armed forces) said there was no precedence and they will start commissioning women on an experimental basis. They started the experiment. The women served well for 14 years and then they were dropped suddenly with no benefits. In the court, my argument was if a woman is fit for a job for 14 years then what happened in the 15th year. <br /><br />All of a sudden, she is not losing her skills. I guess the time scale of 14 years was decided because after 13 years, the competition for merit-based promotion process began in the armed forces and in most of the branches where women were allowed, they performed better than their male counterparts. Women have aspirations these days. If you suddenly release them at an age of 37-38, where will they go? If PC is allowed, they can serve till at least 54 years. The court reasoned that it was not a fair treatment to women.<br /><br />Was there any change in the government argument in the court between 2010 and 2015?<br /><br />There is no major change in the government arguments. It took us five years to win the case for naval women officers (petition was filed in October 2010) as the government was still resisting the PC to the women. The Army filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on the 2010 verdict, but the SC did not stay the HC verdict. In 1991-92, the Navy said women would not serve on-board but around 1998-99, the policy was changed, following which women served on the ships also. Still, the navy was not ready to give them PC in the logistics branch arguing that ships don’t have women-specific facilities. The basic question remains what happens after 14 years if a woman serves with distinction in a branch for 14 years.<br /> <br />What are the points in the Army appeal?<br /><br /> At the time of the first case, the Army appealed since the majority of its soldiers come from a rural background, they would not accept a woman as their commanding officer. This time in the SC, they argue that since the army consists of many field formations and the nature of the job is arduous, it would be difficult for them to have women officers in many branches. The Army currently gives PC in education and JAG branches, and opposing it in other branches including signals. As the SC is yet to give its ruling, the Army is allowing women to serve beyond 14 years, without promotion.<br /> <br />Following the verdict, do you think the situation would improve for women looking at a career in the armed forces?<br /><br />Obviously, because they know now that they don’t have to retire at 38 and look for an alternative job. Bright women officers now are sure that they can serve the armed forces at least till they are 54.</div>
<div>Within a span of five years, two judgments from Delhi High Court broke yet another glass ceiling by ensuring permanent commission to women in non-combat branches of Army, Air Force and Navy. Senior Advocate Rekha Palli who fought on behalf of the women officers in both the cases spoke to <em>Deccan Herald’s</em>Kalyan Ray about the two judgments, the deep-rooted resistance from the establishment and how she hopes these rulings would change the lives for women in uniform in future. Excerpts:<br /> <br />What’s the main message from the two judgments?<br /><br />The 2010 judgment was a landmark one that gave women officers hope as till then, nobody thought of granting them permanent commission in the armed forces. We had hoped with the passage of time, the armed forces will be more open, which did not happen. The Navy judgment gives even stronger message that women are here to stay and nobody can think of denying them equal opportunity. In the two judgments, the court also looked at several practical aspects of the problem. It is unfortunate that on the Republic Day, women contingent from three services marched on the Rajpath to showcase the women power to the world, but they were not awarded permanent commission in all branches.<br /> <br />The judgment on the Navy women officers’ case gave examples of women participating in combat role in the armed forces from other nations.<br /><br />Yes, this ruling is more prominent on pointing out new roles of women in the armed forces. And why not combat role as modern battle is heavily technology driven and women are technologically advanced.<br /><br />When you took up the case, as a lawyer what challenges you faced?<br /><br />I was astonished to see how women were treated in the armed forces. They were treated like guinea pig for an experiment. They (MoD and armed forces) said there was no precedence and they will start commissioning women on an experimental basis. They started the experiment. The women served well for 14 years and then they were dropped suddenly with no benefits. In the court, my argument was if a woman is fit for a job for 14 years then what happened in the 15th year. <br /><br />All of a sudden, she is not losing her skills. I guess the time scale of 14 years was decided because after 13 years, the competition for merit-based promotion process began in the armed forces and in most of the branches where women were allowed, they performed better than their male counterparts. Women have aspirations these days. If you suddenly release them at an age of 37-38, where will they go? If PC is allowed, they can serve till at least 54 years. The court reasoned that it was not a fair treatment to women.<br /><br />Was there any change in the government argument in the court between 2010 and 2015?<br /><br />There is no major change in the government arguments. It took us five years to win the case for naval women officers (petition was filed in October 2010) as the government was still resisting the PC to the women. The Army filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on the 2010 verdict, but the SC did not stay the HC verdict. In 1991-92, the Navy said women would not serve on-board but around 1998-99, the policy was changed, following which women served on the ships also. Still, the navy was not ready to give them PC in the logistics branch arguing that ships don’t have women-specific facilities. The basic question remains what happens after 14 years if a woman serves with distinction in a branch for 14 years.<br /> <br />What are the points in the Army appeal?<br /><br /> At the time of the first case, the Army appealed since the majority of its soldiers come from a rural background, they would not accept a woman as their commanding officer. This time in the SC, they argue that since the army consists of many field formations and the nature of the job is arduous, it would be difficult for them to have women officers in many branches. The Army currently gives PC in education and JAG branches, and opposing it in other branches including signals. As the SC is yet to give its ruling, the Army is allowing women to serve beyond 14 years, without promotion.<br /> <br />Following the verdict, do you think the situation would improve for women looking at a career in the armed forces?<br /><br />Obviously, because they know now that they don’t have to retire at 38 and look for an alternative job. Bright women officers now are sure that they can serve the armed forces at least till they are 54.</div>
