murder

In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India declared laws and regulations founded on gender bias to be constitutionally impermissible. The court emphatically stated that rules which consider the marriage of female employees and their domestic commitments as grounds for disentitlement are unconstitutional.

The apex court specifically addressed a case involving the release of a permanent commissioned officer in the Military Nursing Service due to a patriarchal rule, deeming it a glaring instance of gender discrimination and inequality. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, presiding over the case, directed the Union government and other parties to compensate former Lieutenant Selina John with Rs 60 lakh within eight weeks as a comprehensive resolution.

The court categorically deemed the discharge of Lt. Selina John from service based on a marriage-related rule as illegal and manifestly arbitrary. The bench highlighted the inherent discrimination and inequality in terminating employment solely because of a woman’s marital status, emphasizing that such patriarchal rules undermine human dignity, the right to non-discrimination, and fair treatment.

Despite the Center’s challenge to the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to reinstate Lt. Selina John with all consequential benefits, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the tribunal’s order. The bench rejected the notion that a permanent commissioned officer in the Military Nursing Service could be released or discharged on the grounds of marriage.

Furthermore, the court noted the withdrawal of the contentious Army Instruction No 61 of 1977, titled “Terms and conditions of service for the grant of permanent commissions in the Military Nursing Service,” through a subsequent letter on August 29, 1995.

The Supreme Court reiterated the unconstitutionality of laws and regulations rooted in gender bias, emphasizing that rules considering the marriage of women employees and their domestic responsibilities as a basis for disqualification are impermissible. In modifying the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order, the court mandated the Union government to promptly compensate the officer with Rs 60 lakh within eight weeks. Additionally, the bench decreed that failure to make the payment within this timeframe would incur interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the order until payment.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has invalidated the Jharkhand High Court’s resolution, which introduced a fresh requirement of 50% aggregate marks for candidates in examinations for the selection of district judges. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar held that altering the aggregate marks post-examination is arbitrary and impermissible.

The court instructed the High Court to recommend candidates who have succeeded based on merit or select lists for filling existing vacancies without enforcing the full court resolution mandating a 50% aggregate mark for each candidate.

Highlighting that the High Court’s resolution on March 23, 2024, deviated from statutory rules and was therefore impermissible, the court stated that preventing a candidate’s appointment without finding them unsuitable violates recruitment rules and fails the Article 14 test, deeming it arbitrary.

The court clarified that determining cut-off marks is within the High Court’s authority, but such decisions must be made before the commencement of the examination. The bench emphasized that the High Court administration cannot use rules to make a blanket decision deviating from the specified selection criteria.

Maintaining the “no change in the rule midway” principle as integral to service jurisprudence, the court rejected the validity of the full court resolution.

A group of candidates led by Sushil Kumar Pandey contested the resolution’s validity, arguing against the imposition of a 50% aggregate mark as a qualifying criterion for district judge posts.

The High Court, in its defense, claimed that applying a higher aggregate mark is not prohibited by rules or regulations. It argued that being on the select list does not confer a legal right to appointment, justifying the resolution by stating the need to find better candidates without considering a candidate unsuitable for the appointment process.