NEW DELHI, May 14— The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the Indian Army’s policy of inducting men and women officers into its Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch in a fixed 50:50 ratio, observing that gender-neutral recruitment should be based on merit, not gender bifurcation.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by officers Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, who were denied entry into the JAG despite securing higher ranks than their male counterparts.
The petitioners secured 4th and 5th positions in merit, but were not selected due to only three out of six JAG vacancies being reserved for women.
“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?” Justice Datta asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared on behalf of the Centre and the Army.
JAG serves as the Indian Army’s legal wing, advising the Chief of Army Staff on legal matters and overseeing military disciplinary and litigation matters.
The court questioned the rationale behind labelling the posts as gender-neutral when candidates with higher merit were being overlooked on the basis of gender quotas.
“Gender neutrality doesn’t mean 50:50. It means it should not matter which gender the candidate belongs to,” the Bench noted.
“Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by petitioner 1, Arshnoor Kaur. Accordingly, we direct the respondents (Centre and Army) 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),” the Bench said in its May 8 order, while reserving the verdict.
The court also questioned the Centre’s logic behind earmarking fewer posts for women despite maintaining that the roles were open to all genders.
Defending the recruitment policy, ASG Bhati argued that induction of women into the Army, including the JAG branch, is a calibrated and evolving process, based on operational needs and manpower assessments.
“To say that the intake policy from 2012 to 2023—first 70:30 and now 50:50—is discriminatory would not only be incorrect, but would also infringe upon the Executive’s exclusive authority in matters of defence administration,” Bhati submitted.
She emphasized that gender-specific vacancies existed across Army branches based on role-specific requirements and operational preparedness.
“Functioning of the JAG branch cannot be seen in isolation as mere legal advisors to military commanders during peacetime. It’s an integral part of the Army with a crucial role in operational readiness,” she said.
The court’s scrutiny of the Army’s recruitment criteria has brought renewed attention to the larger issue of gender equality and merit-based access within India’s defence services.
