Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faculty Publications Article Faculty Publications -Articles Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Shukla, Anshuman; Mukherjee, Sayan; Ray, Ipsita Title A name given to the resource Women in security services: a (post)feminist reading of Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 01-01-2025 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Indian Law Review;Volume;9;Issue;3;pp.367-385 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2025.2541511" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2025.2541511</a> <br /><br /><a href="https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012467868?origin=resultslist" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012467868?origin=resultslist</a> Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Shukla A., Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India; Mukherjee S., Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India; Ray I., School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore, India Description An account of the resource The role of women in Indian security services was debated in the recent judgement, Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India. The Supreme Court invalidated the impugned selection criteria and their retrospective application upon female staff as instances of indirect discrimination. This case note identifies three major implications regarding the gendered nature of the debate. Firstly, the Courts findings reveal that the government adopted certain strategic modes of postfeminist governmentality to utilize the discourse of women empowerment for departmental ends. Secondly, popular readings of the judgement risk being reduced to postfeminist cultural sensibilities, which romanticize individualistic agency and manufacture isolated struggling heroes to eventually dull the cross-sectoral feminist solidarity. Lastly, the Courts progressive doctrinal turn still construed women officials as mere employees-beneficiaries mostly claiming careerist interests. It abandoned any holistic appraisal of the role of women in military service, thereby articulating an impoverished account of female agency, dignity, and personhood. 2025 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis. Subject The topic of the resource dignity rights; Ethics of care; feminist solidarity; indirect discrimination; military and security services; postfeminism; realism Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Routledge Relation A related resource ISSN: 24730580; Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Article Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Restricted Access; Hardcopy may be available in the library Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource online