Seniority versus merit in appointing service chiefs: examine the governance and civil–military relations aspects.

Article 53(2) gives the President supreme command of the Defence Forces and says its exercise "shall be regulated by law" [1]. Service chiefs are appointed by the Union government. The usual rule is seniority, and the government keeps the option to choose on "merit." The government's naming of VCAS Air Marshal Ashutosh Dixit as the 29th Chief of the Air Staff, effective 31 October 2026, shows how this choice works in practice [2].

Governance aspects

• Predictability and continuity: Bhadauria, A P Singh and Dixit were all serving as Vice Chief when they were named CAS [2][3][4]. Dixit was named about 25 days before the takeover, so the hand-over of command is smooth [2].
• Fit for the future: the military is moving towards jointness. The four-star CDS post [5] and the Inter-Services Organisations Act, 2023 [6] are part of this, and the theatre-command roadmap is still under deliberation [7]. Choosing on merit lets the government pick a chief with joint experience. Dixit, for example, was CISC at HQ IDS [2].
• Opaque criteria: "merit" has no codified, public yardstick. Date of birth and the timing of retirements often decide who is eligible, so even seniority can be shaped by when appointments are made.

Civil–military relations aspects

• Civilian supremacy: the executive's choice confirms democratic control over the armed forces [1]. Seniority is a convention, not a legal entitlement.
• Risk of politicisation: passing over senior officers can look like a reward for being close to the government. This hurts the morale of those superseded and the forces' image as apolitical.
• Seniority as a shield: an automatic rule protects both the government and the military from charges of favouritism. Because no one needs to "lobby," professional autonomy is preserved.
• Changing hierarchy: theatre commands would separate operations from Raise-Train-Sustain work. The chief's role would then shift, and the qualities a chief needs would change with it [7].

Seniority brings stability, and merit brings fitness for the role. Neither works well alone. A way forward is a "merit-within-seniority" model: draw a panel from the senior-most officers, assess them on transparent criteria such as joint and operational experience, and record the reasons for the choice. This keeps civilian supremacy under Article 53 intact and protects the military's apolitical professionalism.