The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment striking down an Indian Army policy that capped the number of women eligible for the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG). The Union of India and the Indian Army are now to comply with the directions of the court and conduct JAG recruitments without gender-based seat divisions. If all women candidates meet the merit criteria, all should be selected, the court noted.

The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, held that the essence of gender neutrality lies in selecting candidates solely on merit, irrespective of gender. It has also mandated the publication of a common merit list for JAG, disclosing the marks of all candidates.

The judges noted that provisions in the Army Act, which resulted in only three positions for women compared to six for men—violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. The policy’s reservation for male candidates under the guise of “induction” was deemed arbitrary.

Stated the bench, “the respondents by notification issued under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, have permitted women to join the JAG branch, this Court is of the view that the executive can't restrict numbers and/or make reservation for male officers under the guise of induction by way of policy or administrative instructions. Further the impugned notification to the extent that it provides for only three vacancies for female candidates as against six vacancies for male candidates is against the concept of equality as enshrined under the Constitution as it makes reservation for male candidates under the guise of induction.”

During the proceedings, it emerged that the selection criteria for JAG were identical for men and women, yet recruitment practices failed to reflect this parity. The Court stressed that the Army must recruit the most deserving candidates, regardless of gender, while ensuring their primary function remains legal advisory.

“To address past discrimination against women in JAG recruitment, the Court ruled that at least 50% of the vacancies must be allocated to women.

To compensate the women for their previous non-enrollment, the Union of India shall allocate not less than 50% of the vacancies to women candidates. However, to restrict women to 50% of the seats... despite being meritorious than the male candidates is violative of the right to equality since in the present case, the petitioner has obtained 447 as against 433 marks by the Respondent no. 3. This Court directs the Respondent Union of India and the Army to induct Petitioner no. 1 in the next available training course for being commissioned in the JAG Department of Indian Army’’,noted the bench.

The Court also granted interim relief to petitioner Arshnoor Kaur, directing her induction into the Army’s next JAG training course.

They also expressed skepticism over the Union’s justification for limiting women’s posts while professing gender neutrality. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had argued that gender balance in JAG would be achieved from 2023 onward, but the Court questioned the logic of excluding higher-merit candidates based on seat quotas.

Justice Manmohan made the position clear: if ten women qualify for JAG and rank higher on merit, all ten must be appointed. He further noted that concerns over women in combat roles should not be used to curtail their opportunities in JAG.

The Court concluded by reiterating that a nation cannot truly progress if half its population- women, remain sidelined from its defense apparatus.

Case Details: Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India