SC stays women SSC army officers' release from service
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre not to release from service the Short Service Commission (SSC) women Army officers who are challenging the denial of permanent commission, observing that their morale must not be brought down "in the prevailing situation."The top court lauded the efforts of the Indian Army in wake of the prevailing situation after " Operation Sindoor ". A division bench headed by Justice Surya Kant said that every citizen needs to stand by the Army and uplift its morale.Speaking for the Bench, Justice Kant added "this is not the time we keep these people (officers) running around in the Supreme Court and courtrooms...there is some better place now for them to perform...As on date, we would like their morale to be kept high".The Bench said that it will decide the case of merits but in the "meantime just utilize their services. It's not your case they are unsuitable kind of officers", Justice Kant told the counsel appearing for Centre.When the counsel for the Centre submitted that the Army has a steep pyramidical structure, and as such, needs more young officers, Justice Kant said that the Army needs a "blend of both (young and experienced officers)".The senior SC Judge added "young blood needs to be trained, guided...most important thing is development of mental temperament...when you go to a height of 60000 or above...officers are standing there without bothering about anything...there, one feels proud. All of us feel very little before them".The development took place during the hearing of a plea filed by Lt. Col. Geeta Sharma, a Woman Short Service Commission Officer. Her plea contended that she has been relieved from her posting and prayed that she may be allowed to continue in service, as she has not been dismissed thus far.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Advocate ‘warns of' taking HC judges to Supreme Court, issued contempt notice
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice against an advocate, Ravneet Kaur, form making 'scandalous remarks' and 'per se contemptuous' allegations against the sitting high court judges and a trial court judge in her application seeking early hearing her pending case. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur's plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. 'The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,' the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate. Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31. In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up 'at the earliest date' she would be 'left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar'. The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such 'scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism' could not be justified. 'Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,' Justice Brar said. The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, 'not a layperson but a qualified Advocate', could not claim her 'unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.' Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that 'counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.' The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner's request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a 'heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.' On July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found 'no justifiable reasons' to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined. Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to 'an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts' that 'undermines the dignity of the rule of law' and 'have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.' While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, 'in the interest of justice', listed the main petition for August 29.
NDTV
26 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Mistake...": Maharashtra Goes To Top Court Against Train Blasts Acquittals
The Maharashtra government has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging yesterday's Bombay High Court's decision to acquit 12 persons who were accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. The plea was mentioned on Tuesday before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai by Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, who requested that the plea be taken up urgently by the top court. The Court listed the matter for hearing on Thursday. Nineteen years after seven train blasts that killed more than 180 persons, the high court on Monday acquitted all the 12 accused, saying the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case and it was "hard to believe the accused committed the crime". The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), said the high court, failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. The high court set aside a September 2015 judgment of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) court that had imposed the death penalty on 5 of the 12 accused persons and had sentenced the remaining 7 to life. In its damning indictment of the prosecution's case, the high court declared all confessional statements of the accused as inadmissible and suggested "copying". The Maharashtra government argued in its petition that the high court has recorded a "very peculiar observation in disbelieving the confession" of the fifth accused. The government has called it a mistake to not trust the important evidence on the recovery of RDX and detonator. "The High Court has disbelieved the recovery of 500 gms of RDX from Accused No 1on a hyper technical ground that the RDX which was seized was not sealed with a lac seal. It is worth noting that it was not sealed with Lac because RDX is a flammable high court has erred in disbelieving the recovery of RDX," said the government in its petition. Investigators said the bombs, made of RDX and ammonium nitrate, were placed inside pressure cookers and concealed in bags. The attacks were attributed to Pakistan-backed Islamic militants. The High Court, argued the state government, has committed a grave error in not accepting the arguments advanced by the trial court for sentencing the accused. "It has erred in acquitting the accused of all the charges including the UAPA," it said. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) filed charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The prosecution relied heavily on confessions, alleged recoveries, and circumstantial evidence - none of which stood up under the high court's scrutiny. "It is necessary to see that the accused were continuously engaged in activities prohibited by law, which are cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or more and in respect of which more than one charge sheet has to be filed in the competent court within the preceding period of 10 years and which have been tried by the competent court cognizance should have been taken," it said. Former Mumbai police commissioner A N Roy today expressed shock over the high court's acquittal of all 12 accused in the case, saying the probe into the case was conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in a professional manner where evidence was collected "honestly and truthfully". On the evening of July 11, 2006, bomb blasts took place at seven different places in the Mumbai local trains within just 11 minutes. In this incident, 189 people died, while more than 827 passengers were injured. The bombs were placed in first-class compartments of trains from Churchgate. They exploded near the stations of Matunga Road, Mahim Junction, Bandra, Khar, Jogeshwari, Bhayandar, and Borivali. A trial court in 2015 convicted 12 people in the blasts' case.
United News of India
39 minutes ago
- United News of India
LS adjourned for second day amid continued ruckus by Opposition
New Delhi, July 22 (UNI) The Lok Sabha was adjourned for the second consecutive day today without any proceedings, following persistent disruptions by Opposition parties. As soon as the House re-assembled at 2 pm, Opposition members trooped into the well of the House, holding placards and shouting slogans. Presiding officer Dilip Saikia urged the agitating members to go back to their seats and let the House function. But the sloganeering by the protesting members continued. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju while condemning the action of the Opposition said, '"It was decided in the meeting that 'Operation Sindoor' would be discussed first, and a specific time has been allotted for it. How can all issues be addressed simultaneously?" He further said that the members protesting with placards is not acceptable. 'In the Business Advisory Committee we have said that the government is ready to discuss. But they (Opposition) don't want to run the House'. 'You waste crores of tax payers' money by disrupting the House,' Rijiju slammed the Opposition. But the Opposition ruckus continued and the Chair adjourned the House till 11 AM on Wednesday. Earlier, the zero hour was disrupted, leading to the adjournment of the House until 2 pm. When the proceedings resumed at 12 noon following the first adjournment, Opposition members entered the well of the House, shouting slogans and causing an uproar. After the papers were laid on the table, presiding officer Jagdambika called for the zero hour. Opposition members raised slogan, demanding discussion on SIR (Special Intensive Review) and other issues and trooped into the well of the House. Pal informed the members that, based on their demand, the Business Advisory Committee has agreed to discuss Operation Sindoor for 16 hours. Therefore, members of all parties should remain seated and participate in the House proceedings. He said that the government is willing to discuss any issue raised by the Opposition, but they did not listen to him and continued to create ruckus. Meanwhile, Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal assured the members that the government is ready to hold discussions on all issues. Jagdambika Pal also stated that instead of displaying placards and shouting slogans, members should cooperate in the smooth functioning of the House. As the uproar intensified, he adjourned the proceedings of the House until 2 pm. UNI RBE PRS
