The Supreme Court on Monday hit the Indian Army policy of burning six of the nine Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch vacancies for men and only three for women, calling it “arbitrary”, unconstitutional and unlike the principle of gender neutrality.
In an important decision to strengthen gender equality in the armed forces, a bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Manmohan said that the Army and the Central Government did not put a roof on the number of women in the awakening cadre, once they were allowed to enter under Section 12 of the Army Act. “The” true meaning of gender neutrality “is that all meritorious candidates, regardless of gender, must be selected.
The ruling two women came on petitions filed by the candidates, which were in total fourth and fifth position in total due to gender-based allocation of seats in 2023 JAG recruitment, but the selection was refused. The bench said that in the case, one petitioner Arnsoor Kaur scored 447 marks, which was more than 433 made by a male candidate in the third place in the list of men, yet he was excluded. The court directed his induction in the next available training course, given that it was excluded “indirect discrimination” in violation of Article 14 (Equality), 15 (no discrimination), and 16 (equality of opportunity) of the Constitution. While the other candidates, the ethics Tyagi scored 477 marks, no order was passed in his case as she joined the Indian Navy during the pendency of the case. Senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan represented the petitioners.
The court organized these administrative instructions, which had no statutory support and Section 12 notification could override to allow women to allow women to the JAG branch.
The bench further announced that the 2023 recruitment policy, which envisaged at least 50% of JAG vacancies for women, which was to “compensate for their previous non-enrollment”, but capted its share on that figure, was neutral on its face, but was discriminatory in effect.
“Although it’s anything, it’s anything, but gender-plated in application and practice … Evidences of uneven treatment are large as merit list … female candidates have hugely excluded their male counterparts,” the decision said. This cited the example from the current case, where a male candidate was ranked sixth in the merit list of men, scored less than a woman in the tenth place in the list of women, yet she was not when she was not.
“The practice of fixing the limit of a roof for the recruitment of women candidates has the effect of abolishing the status quo, which has been historically discriminatory for women candidates. Such a practice results in imprisonment of women candidates, even if in spite of their performance or merit, not in the category of their gender, not in the constitution-nal, not as a concept, it is also not.
Given that male and female awake officers make part of the same cadre, face similar terms of service, and the same selection is evaluated by criteria, the bench said that there was no justification for different qualification lists. It directed that future recruitment is conducted through a general merit list for all candidates, in which the list and individual marks are made public.
“The primary job of this branch is to give legal advice and to conduct cases … There is no explanation why a gender-based vacancy allocation is necessary for a legal branch where duties, training and performance expectations are the same for all officers regardless of gender,” the court said, a merit-based procedure will only improve the branch’s efficiency.
This instructed the India and the army to operate the future Jag recruitments without the vacancies without vacancies, which made it clear that if all the qualified candidates are in the form of women, then all of them should be selected. “To limit women candidates to 50% seats, as argued by the respondents, they violate the right to equality despite being more meritorious than male candidates,” the bench announced.
The argument of the army that JAG officials have formed a fighter reserve and women have not been deployed in counter-desire or the anti-terrorism roles were wrongly rejected. The bench pointed to existing policy changes that have “equal” the attachment and operational training of women with men, as well as examples of female officers who command the convoy in militant-affected areas, serving in elite aerial and parachute units, and working in United Nations peace campaigns in the Combat Zone.
The judgment stated that under the 2023 policy, at least 50% of vacancies should be reserved for women to “compensate” for their earlier non-enrollment and increase their strength for 142 officers in the Jagan branch. However, it has been said that women candidates seen in the merit list beyond this 50% quota should also be adjusted, and their intake cannot be shared on that range.
“If women can pilot Rafael jets, work behind enemy lines, and convoy commands in high-risk areas, then there is no legal or operational bar for their deployment at peace places in the Jagan branch,” the decision said.
Added to it; “This court clarifies that it is not implementing its own ideas or forecasting on the army, but implementing the mandate of the Constitution and the law. But this court agrees with many people from the point of view that ‘no nation can be safe, when half its population (ie its women’s force) is held back.”
Quoting Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates-“People were invented when it was invented, the court saw that resistance to change could not justify discrimination. It insisted that women were not demanding special treatment or comfort standards, only that qualification is given a chance.
“If women officers do not match discipline or the required standards from them, the army will be on freedom to work on freedom as it will be in relation to any wrong or unfit male officer,” said this.
