The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment in a case questioning the legality of gender-differentiated vacancies in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) entry scheme. The petitioners, Arshnoor Kaur and another female candidate, challenged the disparity after being denied selection to the 31st JAG Course despite outperforming several male candidates in the merit list.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the matter and acknowledged the apparent inequality in the vacancy distribution. Kaur had ranked fourth overall but was not selected because only three out of nine total seats were reserved for women, while six were allocated to men. Several male candidates with lower rankings were offered positions, prompting the petitioners to invoke their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
In a significant interim relief, the Court directed the Army to induct Arshnoor Kaur into the next available training course. The other petitioner, who has since joined the Indian Navy, was asked to clarify whether she wishes to continue her Navy service or pursue the JAG opportunity.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that the current system of gender-segregated vacancies is arbitrary and discriminatory. They stressed that merit should be the sole criterion for selection, especially in roles like JAG that are largely legal and administrative.
However, the Central government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, defended the policy. Bhati asserted that the Army’s operational structure necessitates differential treatment due to its combat nature and strategic deployments. She explained that while the JAG branch focuses on legal duties, it remains a combatant service with officers required to serve in high-risk operational zones alongside frontline units.
Bhati further stated that maintaining separate Services Selection Boards (SSBs) and gender-based merit lists was essential due to differences in physical and psychological training requirements. She noted that the recently introduced 50:50 gender intake policy (from 2024 onwards) reflects the Army’s gradual movement toward gender parity without compromising operational readiness.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling is poised to impact broader conversations on equal opportunity within military recruitment, especially in roles not directly tied to combat operations.
