Supreme Court Directs Fresh Consideration for Permanent Commission: Cdr Seema Chaudhary vs. Union of India (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 147

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a previous judgment of the Supreme Court be re-examined if specific facts of a case were not brought to the Court’s attention? This question was at the heart of a recent review petition before the Supreme Court of India. The Court addressed the case of Cdr Seema Chaudhary, an officer in the Indian Navy, who was seeking a Permanent Commission (PC). The core issue revolved around whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) correctly applied the Supreme Court’s previous directions regarding the grant of PC to Short Service Commissioned (SSC) officers.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Cdr Seema Chaudhary was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer (SSCO) in the Judge Advocate Generals’ (JAG) Branch of the Indian Navy on 6 August 2007. She received promotions to Lieutenant on 6 August 2009 and Lieutenant Commander on 6 August 2012. Her service was extended twice, in November 2016 and August 2018. She was scheduled to be released from service on 5 August 2021.

The issue arose from a 2008 policy letter (PL) that made the grant of PC prospective and restricted it to certain branches. Cdr Chaudhary, being recruited before this PL, was initially deemed ineligible for PC. However, the Supreme Court in *Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja* (2020) 13 SCC 1, had struck down the prospective nature of the 2008 PL.

Following the *Annie Nagaraja* judgment, Cdr Chaudhary’s case was considered for PC but was denied due to a lack of vacancies. She then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which directed her case to be considered along with officers from later batches (2011 and 2014). This direction led to the current review petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Cdr Seema Chaudhary initially approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, which was then directed to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The AFT, in its judgment dated 3 January 2022, directed that Cdr Chaudhary be considered for PC along with officers from the 2011 and 2014 batches. This direction was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2216 of 2022. The Supreme Court, on 20 October 2022, set aside the AFT order and restored the proceedings back to the AFT, primarily because the AFT had relied on information in a sealed cover that was not accessible to the officers.

Legal Framework

The case hinges on the interpretation of the policy letter (PL) dated 25 February 1999, and the subsequent PL dated 26 September 2008, which stipulated that women SSCOs would be considered for PC in specific branches (JAG, Education, and Naval Architecture) but with prospective effect. The Supreme Court in *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja* had already quashed the prospective nature of the 2008 PL. The court also referred to Regulation 203 of Chapter IX Part III of the 1963 Regulations, which governs the terms and conditions of service of SSC officers, including the grant of PCs.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 9(2) of the Navy Act, which allows the Union Government to issue notifications regarding the engagement or enrolment of women in the Indian Navy.
• Regulation 203, Chapter IX, Part III of the 1963 Regulations, which governs the terms and conditions of service of SSC officers, including the grant of PCs.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner (Cdr Seema Chaudhary):

• The primary argument was that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had erred in directing that her case be considered alongside officers from the 2011 and 2014 batches.
• The petitioner argued that the AFT’s direction was contrary to the binding directions of the Supreme Court in the *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja* case.
• As an in-service officer on the date of the *Annie Nagaraja* judgment, she was entitled to be considered for PC based on the norms set out in that judgment.
• The direction to consider her with later batches caused serious prejudice to her case.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (Union of India and Naval Authorities):

• The respondents submitted that the AFT’s direction to consider Cdr Chaudhary with subsequent batches was to ensure a fair opportunity to all concerned officers and to widen the field of consideration.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in directing that the petitioner be considered for the grant of Permanent Commission along with officers from the 2011 and 2014 batches, despite the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja*.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on its previous judgment in *Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja* [(2020) 13 SCC 1] in which the Court had held that the policy decision of the Union Government dated 25 February 1999 would govern the conditions of service of SSCOs including women officers in regard to the grant of PCs in terms of Regulation 203 Chapter IX Part III of the 1963 Regulations. The Court also held that the policy letter dated 26 September 2008, making it prospective and restricting it to specified cadres, would stand quashed and set aside.

The legal provisions considered by the court include:

• Section 9(2) of the Navy Act: This section allows the Union Government to issue notifications regarding the engagement or enrolment of women in the Indian Navy.
• Regulation 203 of Chapter IX, Part III of the 1963 Regulations: This regulation governs the terms and conditions of service of SSC officers, including the grant of PCs.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on its judgment in *Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja* [(2020) 13 SCC 1]* to emphasize that the 2008 policy letter making PC prospective was quashed, and that in-service officers like the petitioner should be considered based on the 1999 policy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to rectify the injustice caused to the petitioner by the AFT’s erroneous direction. The Court emphasized that the binding judgment in *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja* had to be enforced, and any deviation from it was impermissible. The Court also noted that the petitioner, being an in-service officer, was entitled to consideration for PC based on the norms set out in that judgment. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that the specific facts of the petitioner’s case were not brought to the attention of the Court in the earlier civil appeal.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the AFT’s direction was to widen the field of consideration but rejected it, stating that it was not in line with the binding directions of the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that the specific facts of the petitioner’s case were not brought to the attention of the Court in the earlier civil appeal.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The AFT’s direction to consider the petitioner along with officers from the 2011 and 2014 batches was contrary to the binding directions of the Supreme Court in *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja*.
• The petitioner, being an in-service officer on the date of the *Annie Nagaraja* judgment, was entitled to be considered for PC based on the norms set out in that judgment.
• The direction to consider her with later batches caused serious prejudice to her case.
• The specific facts of the case of the petitioner were not drawn to the attention of the Court in the earlier civil appeal.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The binding judgment, which has to be enforced is the decision of this Court in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja . Any directions de-hors the judgment of the Court could not obviously be issued.”
• “There is a serious element of prejudice which has been caused to the petitioner which must be rectified so as to enforce the final directions of this Court.”
• “We have issued this direction under Article 142 of the Constitution so as to ensure that while no other officer is displaced, a long standing injustice to the petitioner is duly rectified.”

Key Takeaways

• A previous judgment of the Supreme Court is binding and must be enforced. Any deviation from it is impermissible.
• In-service officers who were entitled to consideration for PC based on a Supreme Court judgment should be considered accordingly.
• The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) cannot issue directions that are contrary to the binding directions of the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court can recall its previous order if specific facts of a case were not brought to its attention.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure that a long-standing injustice is rectified.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The order passed by the Court on 20 October 2022 in Civil Appeal No 2216 of 2022 pertaining to the petitioner, should be recalled.
• The case of the petitioner for the grant of PC shall be considered afresh by reconvening a Selection Board.
• The Selection Board shall consider the case of the petitioner on a stand-alone basis, since she was the only serving JAG Branch officer of the 2007 batch whose case for the grant of PC was required to be considered.
• The consideration by the Selection Board shall take place uninfluenced by any previous consideration of her case for PC and uninfluenced by any observations contained in the order of the AFT.
• If a proportional increase in the vacancies is required to be created to accommodate the petitioner, this shall be carried out without creating any precedent for the future.
• Any Annual Confidential Report which has not been communicated to the petitioner shall not be considered for the purpose of the grant of PC.
• The exercise of considering the petitioner afresh for PC shall be carried out on or before 15 April 2024.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja* must be strictly followed, and any deviation by lower tribunals is impermissible. This judgment reinforces the principle that a binding judgment of the Supreme Court must be enforced, and any directions de-hors the judgment of the Court cannot be issued. It also clarifies that in-service officers are entitled to consideration for PC based on the norms set out in the judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Cdr Seema Chaudhary vs. Union of India* underscores the importance of adhering to the binding nature of its judgments. The Court rectified the error made by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in directing the petitioner’s case to be considered with later batches, thereby ensuring that the petitioner’s right to be considered for Permanent Commission (PC) was upheld in accordance with the principles established in *Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja*. The judgment emphasizes that in-service officers are entitled to consideration for PC based on the norms set out in a binding judgment of the Supreme Court and that any deviation is impermissible.