The Supreme Court has declined to entertain the Union Government’s request to modify its earlier ruling mandating that at least 50% of vacancies in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army be allotted to women, firmly holding that any dilution would defeat both merit and gender equality in military legal services.
The issue arose after the Centre moved a Miscellaneous Application seeking changes to the Court’s August 2024 judgment, which had struck down the Army’s recruitment policy that capped the intake of women in the JAG branch. That judgment not only held the policy discriminatory but also directed future recruitment to ensure that women are allocated no less than half of the available JAG vacancies to compensate for their historical exclusion.
The Union argued that while it had complied with the ruling in subsequent advertisements, practical difficulties and policy concerns required a relook at the 50% benchmark. The original petitioner opposed the plea, questioning its maintainability and alleging suppression of material facts by the government.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan was unpersuaded, making it clear that the modification plea sought to reopen settled issues. Explaining the logic of the original ruling, Justice Manmohan emphasised that the 50% floor was necessary to give real effect to the government’s own policy objective, observing that merit could not be used to justify outcomes that perpetuate exclusion. The Court underlined that women could exceed 50% of appointments if they ranked higher on merit, but could not be pushed below that threshold.
Rejecting the Union’s concerns, the bench remarked that the judgment was carefully reasoned and not “half-baked”, adding that excluding women from key roles weakens institutional capacity. The Miscellaneous Application was accordingly dismissed.
Picture Source :
