In a recent development, the Supreme Court Division Bench of  Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih  clarified that its landmark judgment mandating gender-neutral recruitment for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army will not have retrospective effect.

The clarification came while disposing of a writ petition filed by Seerat Kaur, who had sought appointment under the ongoing 35th JAG recruitment cycle, following the apex court’s decision in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India (August 11, 2025).

Facts:

The petitioner, Seerat Kaur, had participated in the 35th JAG recruitment cycle (October 2025) and secured the 6th overall rank in the merit list comprising both male and female candidates. Despite her strong performance, she was not selected, as the recruitment process was based on the earlier system which reserved separate posts for men and women.

Following the Arshnoor Kaur judgment, which held that the JAG recruitment process must be completely gender-neutral, Seerat Kaur approached the Supreme Court seeking to have the same applied to the ongoing recruitment. She contended that since she ranked higher on merit, she should be appointed, even if it resulted in all available seats being filled by women candidates.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, contended that the principle established in Arshnoor Kaur (supra)—mandating that recruitment to the JAG branch be merit-based and gender-neutral—ought to apply to the ongoing recruitment cycle as well. She emphasized that principles of fairness required its immediate implementation, particularly since her higher merit position placed her above certain male candidates who had been selected.

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, opposed the plea, arguing that the Arshnoor Kaur judgment had expressly stated that the new system would apply “henceforth”. Therefore, applying it retrospectively to a process already initiated would create administrative complications and undermine procedural fairness.

The bench agreed with the Union’s contention. The Court observed that paragraph 117 of the Arshnoor Kaur judgment explicitly used the term “henceforth”, signifying prospective application.

"Having regard to the observations made in paragraph 117 of the decision of this Court in “Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors.1” to the effect that Union of India shall “henceforth” conduct recruitment in the manner specified in the judgment as well as publish a common merit list for all Judge Advocate General (‘JAG’) candidates, i.e., for all male and female candidates, and make the merit list public together with the marks obtained by all the candidates participating in the selection process, we see no reason to hold that the directions contained in such judgment will apply retrospectively so as to affect any process of recruitment for appointment to the post of JAG that has been initiated prior thereto, including the 35th recruitment cycle which is under consideration." the court stated.

Court’s Ruling:

Accordingly, the Bench concluded that since the 35th recruitment cycle was initiated before the Arshnoor Kaur judgment, the new directions could not affect it.

The Apex  Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the gender-neutral recruitment guidelines will apply only to future JAG selections. However, acknowledging that Seerat Kaur had been allowed to join the training course as an interim measure, the Court made certain humane exceptions.

The Bench directed that she be permitted to complete her training if she wished, but clarified that her participation would not confer any automatic right to appointment. In a considerate gesture, the Court added that if any of the eight selected candidates fail to complete their training or are disqualified, Seerat Kaur may be considered for appointment upon successful completion of her training.

"However, while taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been permitted to join the training course (which is of eleven months duration) in pursuance of an interim order passed by this Court, we permit her to complete the training course, if she so chooses. We hasten to observe that if all the eight selected candidates successfully complete their training and are appointed, the petitioner shall have no right to seek appointment based on the result of the 35th recruitment cycle. However, in the event, fortune smiles on the petitioner and any of the eight candidates undergoing training pulls out or is otherwise declared disqualified or in case any other vacancy arises where she can be accommodated, she may be considered for appointment on successful completion of training. The aforesaid direction is made as a very special case and shall not be treated as a precedent for future case." the bench stated.

With these directions, the Court disposed of the petition. 

Case Details: Seerat Kaur v. Union Of India & Anr.,Writ Petition (Civil) No.928/2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv.

Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Nithin Pavuluri, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Ritika Singhal, Adv. Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, AOR Ms. Deeplaxmi Matwankar, Adv. Ms. Manreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Ghanashyam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Aulluck, Adv. Ms. Samta Pushkarna Mishra, Adv.