In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has struck down the Indian Army's policy of reserving a higher number of posts in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch for men, declaring it unconstitutional and discriminatory.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan ruled that true gender neutrality requires selection based purely on merit, without any gender-based caps. The Court observed that once women were allowed entry into the JAG branch under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, the executive could not impose arbitrary vacancy limits.
Read also:- Madras HC Sets Aside FIR Closure, Orders New Investigation in Lord Krishna Facebook Post Case
"If ten women surpass all other candidates in merit, all ten must be inducted," Justice Manmohan stated.
The challenged policy reserved six vacancies for men and only three for women, despite identical eligibility, training, and duties. The Court termed this indirect discrimination, noting that one petitioner, Arshnoor Kaur, secured 447 marks - higher than a male candidate's 433 - yet was denied selection. She has now been directed to be inducted in the next JAG training course. The second petitioner had joined the Navy the Court sought her preference for continuation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Urges IAF to Reconsider Denial of Family Pension to Stepmothers
Rejecting the Union's 50:50 gender ratio policy from 2023, the Court questioned how it could be called gender-neutral when meritorious women were still excluded. It stressed that the JAG's primary function - providing legal advice - does not justify gender-based seat bifurcation.
The Court directed the Union and the Army to conduct unified recruitment, publish a common merit list with marks of all candidates, and ensure no gender-based restrictions in future selections.
"No nation can be truly secure if half its population is held back," the Bench emphasised.
Case Details: ARSHNOOR KAUR v UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 772/2023
