A writ petition challenging gender disparity in the selection process of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Entry Scheme 31st Course of the Indian Army was filed in the Supreme Court of India. While critically examining the policy of the Army to reserve unequal vacancies for male and female candidates, the Apex Court noted that precedence should be given to merit rather than gender-based quota. Pointing out that "gender neutrality does not mean 50:50" the Top Court questioned the basis of such bifurcation when many higher-ranked women were overlooked due to lesser reserved seats.
Facts of the Case:-
- A writ petition was filed by two female candidates who had appeared for the JAG Entry Scheme (31st Course). They did secure 4th and 5th ranks respectively, which was higher than other male counterparts, however the petitioners were not selected owing to the fact that there were 3 vacancies for females.
- As per the selection criteria, 3 seats were allotted to women while 6 were reserved for men, hence denying the selection of the petitioners on the basis of their gender.
- It was argued by the counsel for petitioners, that reservation of lesser posts for women for a course which is said to be gender-neutral is a violation of Fundamental Rights provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner claimed that their merit was sidelined due to the discriminatory vacancy policy, even if the Army claims that JAG cadre is for all genders.
- On the other hand, the Union of India, which was represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, in the favour of the policy stated that the vacancies under the JAG cadre were decided on the basis of operational assessments as well as manpower planning. The defendant further mentioned that there are various there are other gender-specific vacancies in other branches of the armed forces as well. For example, medical and dental corps are exclusively reserved for women applicants only. It was further explained by the Assistant Solicitor General that a 50:50 selection ratio is already there since the year 2023.
Observation by the Court
- The Court expressed strong concerns about the reasoning offered by the Centre. Justice Manmohan, remarked, “Gender neutrality does not mean 50:50 per cent. Gender neutrality means it does not matter from which gender you come. If ten women qualify on merit, all ten should be inducted."
- Further, the Bench scrutinised the mention of Section 12 of the Army Act by the Centre, where the Government can restrict women’s entry to specific services. On the other hand, the Court also noted that once entry for women is allowed in a particular branch, say for example in JAG, such imposition of gender caps via gender-specific policies could be constitutionally questionable. Justice Manmohan observed, “Now, in your third written submission, for the first time, you’ve placed the relevant policy. Its source must be found. Section 12 does not give you such power to restrict numbers once permission is granted.”
- Justice Datta, while challenging the defendant’s argument that appointing women as JAG officers may pose operational risks, including the possibility of them being taken as prisoners of war, pointed out that, “I read that a woman pilot is flying a Rafale aircraft. If that’s possible in the Air Force, why should the Army hesitate? It’s a policy decision, yes, but still, one must ask these questions.”
Decision of the Court-
While granting interim relief the Court, directed the authorities to induct one of the petitioners, Arshnoor Kaur to next training course for JAG. While the second petitioner, as she accepted a position ith the Indian Navy, the Court sought her clarification, if she wishes to continue with the current service or pursue appointment via JAG scheme.
To read similar orders or changes introduced to the legal field, you may follow our blogs or follow us on youtube and instagram at Sharks of Law.
In case you wish to talk to a lawyer online or seek free legal counsel from experienced lawyers for matters related to criminal law, civil law or family law, you may contact us Sharks Of Law through following contact details.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
