On August 11, the Supreme Court invalidated the Indian Army’s policy that allocated a greater number of Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch posts to men than women, ruling it unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Court emphasized that true gender neutrality mandates selection based purely on merit, regardless of gender.

 

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan directed the Union of India and the Indian Army to abolish any gender-based reservation or seat bifurcation in JAG recruitment. The Court ordered that a common merit list be published, reflecting the marks of all candidates, male and female alike, and that all deserving candidates be selected without restrictions.

 

 

The controversy arose after two women petitioners challenged the Army’s practice of reserving only three JAG vacancies for women, while six were earmarked for men, despite the women achieving higher ranks in the selection process. Although the petitioners secured ranks 4 and 5 respectively, they were excluded from selection due to the limited vacancies for women. The petitioners contended that the policy was arbitrary and violated the right to equality under the Constitution.

 

The Court also considered the challenge by a male respondent who opposed the petition, asserting his right based on the separate male merit list.

 

• Gender-Neutrality Means Merit-Based Selection: The Court underscored that gender neutrality requires all meritorious candidates to be selected regardless of gender. It is impermissible for the government to reserve more posts for men under the guise of “induction policy.”

• Separate Merit Lists are Flawed: Although men and women appeared to compete for separate posts, the selection criteria and evaluation were identical, making gender-based segregation illogical.

• No Distinction in Cadre or Service Conditions: Male and female JAG officers serve under identical terms, reinforcing that no separate quotas should exist.

• Compensatory Reservation and Limits: While acknowledging past underrepresentation of women, the Court allowed that at least 50% of vacancies be reserved for women to correct historic exclusion. However, limiting women to 50% even if more women are meritorious than men violates constitutional equality.

• Case Example: The Court highlighted a female candidate scoring 447 marks (ranked higher) who was denied selection in favor of a male candidate scoring 433 marks, ruling this as indirect discrimination. The Court directed the Army to induct the female candidate at the next training opportunity.

 

Rejecting the Union’s claim that JAG posts are already gender-neutral due to the 50:50 ratio since 2023, the Court noted this approach was insufficient because it still prevented deserving women from selection. The Court criticized arguments suggesting women’s presence in combat roles might pose risks, emphasizing constitutional mandates over subjective concerns.

 

The Court ordered:

• Union of India and Army to conduct JAG recruitment without gender-based seat allocation

• Publication of a common merit list with marks of all candidates made publicly available

• Immediate induction of the petitioner Arshnoor Kaur into the next training course for JAG officers

• Clarification on the other petitioner’s career choice in the Navy

 

Justice Manmohan stressed that if multiple women qualify based on merit, all should be appointed, without artificial caps.

 

 

 

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates including Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan and Mr. Mandeep Kalra. The respondents included the Union of India and the Indian Army, represented by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, and a team of counsel.