The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in the plea filed by Priyanka Tyagi, a serving Indian Coast Guard officer, seeking permanent commission after completing several years of service as a Short Service Appointment officer. The matter concerns the grant of permanent commission to women officers in the Indian Coast Guard and the applicability of the Coast Guard’s newly issued policy to her case.
The Attorney General, appearing for the Union, relied on the Indian Coast Guard’s policy dated August 18, 2026, under which officers who have completed eight years of service would be given a one-time option to convert their service into permanent commission, subject to selection and availability of vacancies in the respective branches. He submitted that Tyagi would be covered by the new policy, pointing out that her name figures in the list of eligible officers and that she is placed at the top of the list.
“
“Officers who have completed eight years of service will be given a one-time option to convert it into permanent. The selection would be provisional and subject to availability of vacancy in the respective branches… So she will be covered by this. If she can be covered by this, she will get the benefit.”
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and JusticeV Mohana. questioned the Coast Guard’s position and stressed that the matter could not be approached through an overly technical lens.
The Court questioned whether the absence of a permanent-commission policy at the time of petitioner’s induction could, by itself, justify denying her consideration now, particularly when the Coast Guard had subsequently developed the infrastructure and policy framework necessary to accommodate women officers.
The Bench also questioned the Union’s justification based on infrastructure, pointing out that if the Coast Guard had been able to develop facilities and permanent-commission opportunities for male officers, it needed to explain why similar facilities could not be made available to women officers.
The AG responded that the comparison could not be made mechanically, as the Coast Guard’s operational requirements and infrastructure were different from those of the Navy, Army and Air Force. He stressed that the Coast Guard had initially operated with limited equipment and facilities and that infrastructure enabling women officers to serve with greater ease had developed only gradually. He maintained that the denial in Tyagi’s case was therefore not an arbitrary gender-based denial, but a consequence of the Coast Guard’s evolving infrastructure and policy framework.
The Bench further took note of submissions concerning Tyagi’s service record, including her continued service despite not receiving promotions and her posting to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands while leaving behind her 15-month-old child. Her counsel submitted that she had also been denied Child Care Leave.
Case:Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) No. 3045/2024.