News
Four female cops file FR cases against gender inequality in promotions
View(s):By Namini Wijedasa
The Supreme Court this week granted leave to proceed with two fundamental rights petitions filed by four senior women police officers seeking gender equality in promotions within the Police Department.
The officers, all Assistant Superintendents of Police (ASPs) want the Court’s intervention to increase cadre positions available to females from the ranks of Superintendent of Police (SP) and above. They plead that they have rights against gender discrimination under the Constitution of Sri Lanka and several covenants and treaties that the country has ratified.
One petition was filed by A.G.N.D. Seneviratne, a 49-year-old mother-of-two, who joined the Police Department in 1988 as Sub-Inspector. The other was filed jointly by S.A. Renuka Jayasundara, W.J. Padmini and R.A. Darshika Kumari. They joined the police force in February 1997 as Sub-Inspectors and rose to the rank of Inspectors and ASPs. All are below the age of 45.
The petitioners state that, despite meeting all criteria to be promoted to rank of SP, they have been disregarded in a list of recent promotions. They argue that this was because of “unfair and inexplicable discrimination” meted out to female police officers.
There are just two cadre vacancies for female police officers in SP Grade II. The promotions to SP Grade II are made only on the number of available vacancies and exclusively on seniority. For women police officers, therefore, there is no career progression beyond the rank of SP except to reach the single SSP position allocated to them. There are no cadre positions at all for female DIGs, Senior DIGs or IGP.
In contrast, given the number of vacancies allocated to the male officers, all male officers with the prescribed qualifications will be promoted to SP Grade II. The Petitioners requested the Court to declare, among other things, that women officers are entitled to the same promotions as male officers in the same cadre without discrimination. Appearing for the Police Department, Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle argued, among other things, that women did not have the same physical endurance as men; that differences in attributes such as height had to be considered; and that female policewomen did not always perform the same duties as their male counterparts.
The Counsel for the petitioners is J.C. Weliamuna, with Pasindu de Silva. Sujeewa Kaluarachchi is the instructing attorney. Counsel said it was expected that Asian women were not as tall as men and that, while such attributes were considered at the time of entering the police force, they were not relevant in the granting of promotions. Counsel also pointed out that the petitioners had carried out the whole range of duties that their male counterparts had done.
The three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K. Sripavan and Justices Priyantha Jayawardena and Anil Gooneratne fixed the case for January 24, 2017. The petitioners state that the scheme of promotion is flawed inasmuch as it structurally and/or effectively discriminates against women officers without any justification whatsoever, particularly in promotions to SP Grade II and above.