In a significant ruling aimed at dismantling systemic gender barriers in the armed forces, the Supreme Court has struck down the Indian Army’s policy that limited the number of women in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch and reserved more posts for men. The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that genuine gender neutrality demands the selection of the most meritorious candidates, irrespective of gender, and that reserving posts for male officers under administrative instructions violates constitutional guarantees of equality.
The Court observed that once women were permitted to join the JAG branch under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, the executive could not restrict their induction through arbitrary caps. The impugned notification, which provided only three vacancies for women as against six for men, was found unconstitutional as it indirectly created a reservation for male candidates under the guise of induction policy. The Bench stressed that the nature of duties in the JAG branch, primarily legal advisory functions, requires recruitment on merit alone, without any gender bifurcation.
Directing the Union of India and the Army to henceforth conduct a unified recruitment process for JAG, the Court ordered the publication of a common merit list, disclosing the marks of all candidates, male and female. It further directed that if all top candidates in a given cycle happen to be women, all must be appointed without artificial quotas.
The ruling came on a writ petition filed by two women who, despite securing 4th and 5th ranks overall, were denied selection due to the cap on women’s vacancies. The Court noted that one petitioner had secured higher marks than a male candidate selected under the men’s quota, 447 as against 433, yet was overlooked. Calling such selection “indirect discrimination,” the Court ordered her induction in the next available JAG training course. The other petitioner had joined the Indian Navy during the case; the Court sought her preference regarding continuation.
Rejecting the Union’s justification of a 50:50 gender ratio from 2023 onwards, the Court questioned how this could be considered gender-neutral when higher-ranked women were being excluded. Justice Manmohan remarked that if ten women surpass all other candidates in merit, all ten must be inducted.
Emphasising that its role was to uphold constitutional mandates rather than interfere in military affairs, the Court underlined that “no nation can be truly secure if half its population is held back.” It directed that all future JAG recruitment be conducted without gender bifurcation, with results made public along with the merit list and marks obtained by all candidates.
Picture Source :
