Won’t allow woman officer to be humiliated: SC to govt

The Supreme Court instructed the government to reconsider the permanent commission denial of a female Coast Guard officer within two weeks, deeming the government's refusal to provide gender-inclusive facilities not a justification for humiliating a deserving officer. Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, heard the petition filed by commandant Priyanka Tyagi, who had been in service since 2009.

The court emphasized that they would not tolerate the officer's humiliation, stating they would grant her two weeks to reconsider or risk issuing an order.

Tyagi completed 17 years of service after the apex court allowed her to extend beyond the 14-year Short Service Commission (SSC) limit in April 2024. Attorney General R Venkataramani represented the government, asserting that a recent policy change permits permanent commission for women officers. He questioned the court, asking how they could deny permanent commission solely based on the lack of a policy.

The bench pointed out that Tyagi had been serving diligently since 2021 and was recommended by her superiors despite her multiple applications for permanent commission since her joining. The Attorney General also mentioned that the option was not closed and that she could apply under the new policy.

The court further questioned the government's denial, emphasizing that it is unfair to women officers. The Attorney General argued that the Coast Guard functions differently from other defense forces, and denying women permanent commission was not a gender-related issue. However, the bench contended that the Coast Guard's limitations should be considered, and the court would take these factors into account.

Attorney Siddhant Sharma argued that if Tyagi applied again under the new policy, she would be rejected as the policy requires tests usually taken after eight years of SSA, which she had not completed. He pointed out her numerous achievements, such as participating in international exercises and having the highest flying hours among her peers, but the court remained unconvinced, insisting that her case deserved a more thorough examination.