Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today urged the Indian Coast Guard to grant Permanent Commission to a Short Service Commission-woman officer Priyanka Tyagi. It was said that if the ICG does not do the needful, the court will pass an appropriate direction. 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed its opinion to Attorney General R Venkataramani, while dealing with Tyagi's petition challenging Delhi High Court's denial of interim relief for her continuation as a Deputy Commandant. 

Notably, in 2024, the top Court had transferred to itself Tyagi's writ petition before the High Court. By way of an interim order, the Court also allowed her to continue in the ICG at the same post as she had prior to retirement in December 2023. 

Today, Advocate-on-Record Siddhant Sharma, for Tyagi, informed the court that up till the High Court stage, the respondents denied having a policy for grant of Permanent Commission to women in ICG. He further stated that the petitioner had about 4500 hours of flying experience, which was more than both men and women officers. 

AG Venkataramani however drew the court's attention to a "qualitative" difference between the ICG and the Indian Navy. He said that new ships having been acquired , induction of more men and women officers in the ICG is now possible. 

The AG added that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner would have gone out of service in 2023 the respondent will examine if she can be accommodated.  

The CJI however questioned how the petitioner could be denied PC when men officers were being extended the benefit. "Can you deny PC because you don't have a policy?" the CJI asked.

The AG in response urged the court to not look at the case as a gender issue. He asserted that there was no inherent gender insensitivity at play, nor arbitrariness involved in the decision. Pointing to hardships faced by an ICG officer, the AG also said that posts cannot be created for all eligible officers overnight. "Coast Guard is unlike Navy. If you don't have infrastructure, you can't induct officers."

"Hyper-technical objections will not work. If you have a system for men officers, how can you deny [PC] to women officers?", the CJI remarked, while observing that ICG cannot take benefit of its own wrong (not having a policy). 

The AG however persisted that in Indian Navy, which grants PC to women officers, infrastructure has been there since long. The Coast Guard, however, started off with minimum equipment. They both operate in different circumstances and certain specific facilities are required for women officers, he urged. 

Unconvinced, CJI said, "It (the difference) is not of such nature that they can be deprived completely." Justice Bagchi also noted that Tyagi was recommended by her superior officers. 

At this point, Sharma also informed the court that Tyagi was denied CCL (Child Care Leave) by the ICG. She had to leave her 15-month old baby behind to join the service in Andamans. 

At last, the CJI told the AG, "if she (Tyagi) is absorbed by them (ICG) themselves, fine. If not, we will pass an order. We can't allow an officer to be humiliated like this. From the list of eligible officers, we find she is the senior most. Let them show sportsmanship."

Background

The woman Officer/petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commandant (General Duty-Women) in 2009. She was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant (GD) in 2015 and to the post of Commandant (JG) in 2021. In 2021, she submitted a request for permanent absorption along with recommendations from her commanding officers.

However, a year later, the request was returned without action, on the basis that the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) letter dated February 25, 2019 (regarding the grant of permanent absorption to women officers) did not apply to ICG. Reportedly, the petitioner was also communicated that no provision for permanent absorption/commission of SSA Officers existed in ICG. Rather, the procedure for induction of women officers in the permanent cadre of the GD branch existed and the PMT/SSC option had to be exercised at the time of enrolment.

In May 2023, the petitioner was communicated a release order pursuant to the completion of her engagement period. Against the same, she approached the Delhi High Court. The High Court denied interim relief to the petitioner, being of the view that if the petitioner was ultimately successful, she could be directed to be reinstated retrospectively. However, if she was not successful, any period spent in continuation of service, in terms of an interim order passed, would amount to illegal usurpation of office without any entitlement thereto.

Consequently, the petitioner was released from service in December 2023. Challenging the High Court order, she approached the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024

Tags: