Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Is this correct when the SC is examining the issue threadbare ?

This relates to the blog post published on 23 Nov 2011 related to grant of permanent commission to women in the armed forces.

While the official Press Release makes it clear that the govt has already issued a policy letter on 11 Nov 2011 on the subject, it makes one wonder whether the same could have been ethically done in light of the fact that the matter has already been adjudicated by the Delhi High Court and an SLP filed by the Govt is pending before the Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice. Moreover, the Supreme Court has already made it clear to the Govt that there is no stay on the Delhi High Court judgement. As on date hence, the Delhi High Court judgement is ‘law’ for all intents and purposes and for the govt to issue a policy letter while the matter is still under judicial examination, is a little unnatural. Rather than simplifying the matter, this is bound to bring in more chaos and confusion in the already complicated matter. Another example of administrative egotism ?


Anonymous said...

Thankyou for delving into the issue after my query of 29 nov on your previous blog.not only is the ministry confusing the matter but also creating a doubt in our minds about the sincerity of the MOD to implement the Delhi high court order. While the order has been implemented for now, what needs to be seen is what modalities will be formulated by Army in the implementation of this court order. Also will the lady officers get their due rank, perks and priveleges. Where do the women officers stand at the moment, those who have been reinstated and alos those who are already serving and are about to complete their 14 years soon? Requesting you Maj Navdeep to kindly enlighten us with more facts on the issue.

Aryzul said...

Nothing new.. This is old tactic, they have also used in case of MNS Officers. While their case is still in SC, appealed by Army against AFT, they went ahead and issued a notification on MNS Restructuring and that too with ulterior motive pushed silently on the very same day MP is sallary hime, so that it is noticed.

The said notification is direct conflict with case subjudice. The aft order & VI pay commission (an expert body) gives time scale promotion at par other officers, where as the said notification violates it delebrately.

General administration in Armed Forces should also be brought under LOKPAL, if there is one like Jan Lokpal nd not Jokpal.

RJ Singh said...

Dear Navdeep,

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. If there is no stay in the Delhi High Court order, there is no reason why the government should not release a policy letter clarifying a stand. Maybe you are aware of some facts, that you have not brought out, otherwise the Govt letter seems absolutely benign. I can't see anything odd. Any Comments or Clarifications? I have missed your point totally in this one. Regards,

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

@RJ Singh

When the Delhi HC order has not been stayed, it is the law. Isn't the new order opposed in spirit to the Delhi HC judgement ? When the judgement is in operation and the Govt has challenged it in the SC, then what was the tearing hurry to issue another policy letter when the earlier ones are under judicial scrutiny ?

While other important issues such as constitution of committees to enhance the status of military ranks and ironing out of pensionary policies remain on the backburner for us, we spend our time and energy on policies which are already being examined judicially and which are not a result of rational thinking from both sides - the affected parties vis-a-vis the establishment, but an off-shoot of ego-play.