The Supreme Court on Monday invalidated the 2:1 reservation ratio for male and female officers in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General branch, declaring that vacancies can’t be earmarked for men or capped for women.
The court described the policy as “arbitrary” and a violation of the constitutional right to equality.
Policy Violates Gender Neutrality
“The executive cannot reserve vacancies for men. The seats of six for men and three for women are arbitrary and cannot be allowed under the guise of induction,” observed a bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Dipankar Datta.
The judges emphasised that the essence of gender neutrality, as per the 2023 rules, is that the Union must select the most meritorious candidates without imposing gender-based limits. “Restricting the seats of women is violative of the right to equality,” the bench stated.
Court Orders Combined Merit List
The ruling came in response to a petition challenging the restriction that limited women to only half of the available seats in JAG recruitment. Calling such policies detrimental to national interest, the court observed, “No nation can be secure if such policies are followed.”
The bench directed the government to prepare a combined merit list for recruitment, allowing both men and women to compete for all available posts. Additionally, the court ordered that to compensate women for earlier exclusion, the Union of India must allocate at least 50% of vacancies to female candidates. However, it cautioned that restricting women to a fixed quota, despite their higher merit, is unconstitutional.
Government’s Stand Rejected
The court dismissed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati’s argument that JAG posts are already gender-neutral and that a 50:50 ratio has been in place since 2023. The judges reiterated that merit, not gender, should guide selection.
Background
The Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps is the legal arm of the Indian Army. Officers in this branch, known as judge advocates, provide legal assistance to the military, including commanders, soldiers, and their families. Their role includes advising on military law, handling court-martials, and managing various legal matters related to the armed forces.
The case was filed by 2 women candidates who ranked 4th and 5th in the merit list but were denied selection because of the limited seats for women. The court granted relief to one petitioner, ordering her induction into the service. The second petitioner, however, was denied relief as she had already joined the Indian Navy during the case’s pendency.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
