The Supreme Court has raised critical questions regarding the Union Government's decision to maintain a 50:50 gender-based selection ratio for the position of Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the Indian Army. The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, questioned the logic of this policy, especially when the JAG role is considered gender-neutral.
The controversy arose during the hearing of a writ petition filed by two female candidates who challenged the notification dated January 18, 2023, for the JAG Entry Scheme 31st Course. The notification allocated six vacancies for men and only three for women, despite the petitioners securing higher ranks (4 and 5) in the common selection process. The petitioners argued that this allocation deprived them of their right to appointment based on merit.
Read also: Supreme Court Issues Notice in Six Appeals Challenging Acquittals in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Cases
During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the previous selection ratio was 70:30 (men to women), which was based on a 2012 study. However, from 2023 to 2033, the policy was updated to a 50:50 ratio, which Bhati described as a step towards making JAG positions gender-neutral.
But the Supreme Court disagreed with this claim. It pointed out that a 50:50 ratio with separate vacancies for men and women does not align with true gender neutrality. Further, the Court questioned why female JAG officers were not being posted in combat zones due to the risk of becoming Prisoners of War (PoW).
Read also: Supreme Court Issues Notice in Six Appeals Challenging Acquittals in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Cases
Justice Manmohan emphasized the inherent contradiction in the Union’s policy. He remarked:
"Once you allow them in JAG, you will have to allow it in all positions. Why are you making a discrimination that they will not be posted in A area, B area? Why cannot you deploy them everywhere?"
The ASG argued that the government’s policy aimed to prevent women from becoming PoW, as the nature of warfare could put them at risk. However, Justice Manmohan responded:
"If including JAG means combatant status, then women should also be considered combatants. They should be deployable everywhere."
Read also: Only 14 of 221 High Court Judges Appointed Since November 2022 Related to Judges: Supreme Court Data
ASG Bhati highlighted that warfare is evolving, with women already contributing significantly in critical roles. She cited an example where a woman played a crucial role in the Balakot strike by operating in a control position. But she added that this did not mean replacing the majority of men in combat roles.
However, the Supreme Court maintained that in a nation like India, facing multiple threats, the exclusion of women from certain roles is an outdated concept. Justice Manmohan stated:
"In today's world, every citizen, irrespective of gender, should have the opportunity to serve in the armed forces. Limiting women's opportunities goes against the principle of merit."
The Supreme Court's questioning highlights an ongoing debate about gender equality in the armed forces, especially in roles like JAG. The hearing will continue on another day.
Case Details: ARSHNOOR KAUR v UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 772/2023
