Today, On 1th August, The Supreme Court ruled that restricting women’s seats in JAG recruitment violates the right to equality. It quashed the Army’s policy of reserving more posts for men, directing a combined merit list based solely on merit.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court cancelled the decision to reserve six positions for men in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) posts of the Indian Army, which limited the opportunities for women to just three vacancies.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan ruled that a unified merit list should be created for all candidates, irrespective of gender.
The Court stated,
“The executive cannot reserve vacancies for men. The seats of 6 for men and 3 for women is arbitrary and cannot be allowed under the guise of induction. True meaning of gender neutrality and 2023 rules is that Union shall select the most meritorious candidates. Restricting the seats of women is violative of right to equality … No nation can be secure if such policies are followed. Union is directed to conduct recruitment in aforesaid manner and publish combined merit list for all candidates which includes men and women candidates,”
This ruling stemmed from a petition by two women seeking JAG appointments, who were affected by a 2023 notification that allocated six posts for men and only three for women.
Their lawyer informed the Court that the petitioners had achieved the fourth and fifth ranks among all candidates but could not qualify due to the disproportionate allocation of vacancies.
In August 2023, the Court had issued a notice regarding the matter and instructed that two advertised vacancies remain unfilled until a final decision was made.
Earlier this year, while reserving its verdict in May, the Court indicated it was “prima facie” satisfied with one of the petitioners’ arguments and had ordered her induction.
During the hearings, the Supreme Court challenged the Union of India on the limited number of vacancies for women, despite its claims of gender neutrality.
It was not convinced by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati’s assertion that the JAG positions are gender neutral and that a 50:50 selection ratio would be implemented starting in 2023.
In today’s ruling, the Court confirmed its previous order to appoint the first petitioner to the JAG position, stating,
“Union is directed to induct petitioner 1 to be commissioned in JAG department. The second petitioner is not entitled to any relief.”
Representing the petitioners were Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan; Advocate-on-Record Mr. Mandeep Kalra; and Advocates Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Ms. Radhika Jalan, Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Mr. Yashas J, Ms. Shweta Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Ms. Radhika Narula, Mr. Rishabh Lekhi, Mr. Vishal Sinha, and Ms. Ishita Chowdhury.
Representing the respondents were Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati; Advocate-on-Record Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Ms. Shagun Thakur, Mr. Kartikay Agarwal, Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Mr. Raman Yadav, Ms. Sonali Jain, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh; Senior Advocate Mr. Rana Mukherjee; Advocate-on-Record Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj; Advocates Mr. Irshad Ahmed, Mr. Mahesh Singh, Dr. Ashutosh Garg, Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Mr. Abhisth Kumar, and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma; along with Advocate-on-Record Ms. Vernika Tomar.
Case Title: Arshnoor Kaur v. Union Of India
Read Attachment