Entry of women in Indian Army has a chequered history

It was a goosebump moment for the countrymen when two women officers Colonel Sofiya Qureshi of the Army and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh from the Indian Air Force briefed the media about Operation Sindoor in New Delhi on May 7, 2025. However, it cannot be forgotten that the entry of women in the Indian Army has had a chequered history.

A highly celebrated judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on February 17, 2020 by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi describes the steps taken by the Centre progressively since 1992 to bring women into the mainstream of the Army (except Combat Arms category) and how the officers had to fight sex stereotypes for decades together.

The judgement begins with a reference to Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 which states that no female shall be eligible for enrolment or employment in the regular Army except in such corps, department, branch or an other body forming part of, or attached to any portion of, the regular Army as the Centre may by an official gazette notification specify in this behalf.

Pursuant to the power conferred by Section 12, the Centre issued a notification on January 30, 1992 making women eligible for appointment in specific branches/cadres such as Army Postal Service, Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) department, Army Education Corps (AEC), Army Ordnance Corps (central ammunition depots  and material management) and Army Service Corps.

This notification was to remain in force for a period of five years. Subsequently, by a December 31, 1992 notification, women became eligible for enrolment in Corps of Signals, Intelligence Corps, Corps of Engineers, Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and Regiment of Artillery. In December 1996, the induction of women was extended for a further period of five years.

On October 28, 2005, the Ministry of Defence extended the validity of the scheme for appointment of women as officers in the Indian Army. To facilitate this, four amendments were made to the January 30, 1992 notification which was published in the official gazette on February 15, 1992. 

Short Service Commission

The 2005 amendment put an end to the Women Special Entry Scheme (WSES) and replaced it with Short Service Commission (SSC) for a period of 14 years. In 2006, serving WSES officers were given the option to move to the new SSC scheme or continue under WSES. Thereafter, the first batch of SSC women officers entered the Army in 2008.

In the meantime, advocate Babita Puniya had filed a public interest litigation petition before the Delhi High Court in 2003 seeking permanent commission for the women officers in the Army. Subsequently, several women officers too filed writ petitions in the same High Court in 2006 seeking similar relief. When the cases were pending, the Defence Ministry issued a circular on September 26, 2008 envisaging grant of Permanent Commission prospectively to SSC women officers in the JAG and AEC. 

Major Sandhya Yadhav and a few others challenged the 2008 circular before the Delhi High Court on the ground that it could not be given effect to prospectively and that too to only those serving in just two select arms of the Army. The High Court heard all the writ petitions together and disposed them of on March 12, 2010 directing the Centre to offer Permanent Commission to all women officers who had approached the court.

The Centre took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court in 2011 and did not implement the High Court’s judgement for around nine years though the top court had not granted any interim stay against the operation of the judgement. While taking up the appeal for final hearing in 2020, the Supreme Court found that the services in the Army were classified into three broad categories: Combat Arms, Combat Support Arms & Services.

SSC for women was offered only in the last two categories. Since, the exclusion of women from Combat Arms stream was a policy decision of the government and not a subject matter of the dispute before the court, Justices Chandrachud and Rastogi refrained from dealing with that issue. They , however, held that all eligible SSC women officers in the other two streams must be considered for Permanent Commission.

“Arguments founded on the physical strengths and weaknesses of the men and women and on assumptions about women in the social context of marriage and family do not constitute a constituionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity to women officers… If society holds strong beliefs about gender roles – that men are socially dominant, physically powerful and the breadwinners of the family and that women are weak and physically submissive, and primarily caretakers confined to a domestic atmosphere – it is unlikely that there would be a change in mindsets,” wrote Justice Chandrachud.

Sofiya Qureshi 

Recognising the services rendered by the women SSC officers to the cause of the nation by working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts, the Supreme Court listed out the achievements of women officers who had brought laurels to the armed forces and the first name to figure in the 2020 judgement was that of Colonel Qureshi.

Then she was a Lieutenant Colonel and therefore, the judgement read: “Lieutenant Colonel Sophia Qureshi (Army Signal Corps) is the first woman to lead an Indian Army contingent at a multi-national military exercise named ‘Exercise Force 18’ which is the largest ever foreign military exercise hosted by India. She has served in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operation in Congo in 2006 where she, along with others, was in charge of monitoring ceasefires in those countries and aiding in humanitarian activities. Her job included ensuring peace in conflict affected areas.” 

Justice Chandrachud also listed out the achievements of Lieutenant Colonel Anuvandana Jaggi, Major Madhumita, Lieutenant Bhavana Kasturi, Captain Tania Shergill, Lieutenant A. Divya, Major Gopika Bhatti, Major Gopika Ajitsingh Pawar, Major Madhu Rana, Preeti Singh, Anuja Yadav, Captain Ashwini Pawar and Shipra Majumdar. His Bench further took note that as many as 1,653 women officers were serving in the Indian Army.

The top court said that a policy decision taken by the Centre on February 25, 2019 to offer Permanent Commission, albeit prospectively, to the women officers serving in not just two but all 10 arms in which they had been inducted on SSC, was by itself a recognition of the right of women officers to equality of opportunity and non discrimination on the ground of sex as embodied in Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

“With the Union Government having recognised the induction of permanently commissioned women officers in its policy decision dated February 25, 2019, we are of the opinion that the submissions which have been made  by the Union of India betray a lack of understanding of the plain consequences of the decision. The decision of the Union Government to extend the grant of PC to other corps in the support arms and services recognizes that the physiological features of a woman have no significance to her equal entitlements under the Constitution,” the judges observed.

Rejecting the Centre’s stand that the 2019 policy decision would apply only prospectively and not retrospectively, the Supreme Court said: “We clarify that the policy decision will apply to all women SSC officers who are currently in service irrespective of the length of service which has been rendered by them. The failure of the government to implement the judgement of the Delhi High Court has caused irreparable prejudice to the women officers… To turn around now and inform them that they will lose the entitlement of being considered for the grant of Permanent Commission would be a travesty of justice.”