Supreme Court questions gender bias in Army’s JAG recruitment. Top women candidates denied posts despite higher merit.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has recently raised serious concerns over the lesser number of vacancies reserved for women in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army, even though the post is claimed to be gender neutral.
The top court questioned the logic behind the 50:50 selection ratio between men and women and pointed out the contradiction in the Army’s policy.
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the plea filed by two women officers, Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi.
Both had secured high ranks in the merit list—4th and 5th positions respectively—but were not selected due to only three out of six total JAG vacancies being reserved for women.
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on May 8 and expressed clear dissatisfaction with the situation.
The bench said,
“Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by the petitioner 1 Arshnoor Kaur.”
While reserving its final judgment, the bench directed the government to take the necessary steps for her inclusion in the next available training course.
The court stated,
“Accordingly, we direct the respondents to initiate whatever action is required for the purpose of her induction in the next available training course for appointment as Judge Advocate General (JAG).”
During the hearing, the bench also made a comparison with the Indian Air Force, where women are allowed to fly Rafale fighter jets and even face the risk of becoming prisoners of war.
Justice Datta questioned the government by saying,
“If it’s permissible in the Indian Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale fighter jet, then why is it so difficult for the Army to allow more women in JAG?”
The court was informed that the second petitioner, Astha Tyagi, had joined the Indian Navy while the case was still going on.
The bench further asked the Central Government why the JAG posts were called gender neutral if women with better ranks were still not selected because of gender-based vacancy limits.
Justice Manmohan made a strong observation, stating,
“If 10 women qualified for JAG on the basis of merit whether all of them would be appointed as officers JAG branch.”
He also explained what gender neutrality really means by saying,
“Gender neutrality does not mean 50:50 per cent but it means it does not matter from which gender one is from.”
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the Indian Army, defended the current policy.
She explained that the recruitment and roles of women officers in the Army, including in the JAG branch, are part of a step-by-step progressive change while keeping the Army’s readiness in mind.
She said,
“To say the policy of intake of men and women officers from 2012 to 2023 in the ratio of 70:30 (or now being 50:50) as discriminatory and volatile of fundamental rights would not only be incorrect but will also transgress into domain of executive which is the only competent and sole authority for deciding the intake of men and women officers in Indian Army.”
Bhati further stated that all posts in the Army—including those in JAG—are filled according to a careful manpower assessment and operational need.
She said,
“Functioning of JAG branch cannot be seen in isolation as mere legal advisors to military commanders during peacetime. It’s an integral part of the Indian Army also having an equally important role in its operational preparedness.”
She also mentioned why separate Services Selection Board (SSB) interviews are held for men and women. Bhati explained, “Conducting separate SSBs for men and women are a necessity due to the nature of tests involved, which require close intensive physical interactions.”
She called the Army’s gender integration a developing process that is reviewed regularly.
Bhati told the court,
“The intake policies have evolved progressively from a 70:30 ratio to 50:50 from 2024. This is aligned with cadre health and deployment restrictions, which is not arbitrary. Any judicial imposition of parity or neutrality without factoring operational imperatives is likely to undermine both command and control and operational preparedness of the Army.”
Earlier during the hearings, the Supreme Court had also asked why women JAG officers were not posted in combat areas. To this, Bhati replied that this was a deliberate policy decision.
She said,
“It’s a conscious decision on part of the government of India to restrict the employment of women officers from being posted in frontline combat deployment made them susceptible to enemy contact.”
The matter has highlighted a significant debate on gender equality and merit-based selection in India’s armed forces.
Also Read: SC Allows Women Officers to Challenge Army Promotion Policy
The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects a growing call for equal opportunity for women officers in military legal roles, especially when merit clearly justifies their selection.
Click Here to Read More On Army
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
