The Supreme Court recently reserved its judgment in a writ petition filed by two women challenging gender-differentiated vacancies in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) entry scheme for the Indian Army. [Arshnoor Kaur & Anr v. Union of India & Ors].A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan noted that despite securing high ranks in the merit list, the petitioners were not selected for the 31st JAG Course due to the fewer vacancies earmarked for women. It, therefore, directed the Army to take immediate steps to induct one of the petitioners named Arshnoor Kaur in the next available training course for appointment as JAG. The other petitioner, who had reportedly joined the Indian Navy during the pendency of the proceedings, was asked to clarify whether she wants to continue in the Navy. .Kaur had secured a high merit position, ranking fourth overall, yet was denied selection because only three out of the total nine vacancies were reserved for women. In contrast, six vacancies were allotted to men, despite many of the female candidates, including Kaur, ranking higher on the merit list than several male candidates who were selected. She thus approached the Supreme Court, arguing that this disparity violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.The petitioners have contended that such distinctions are arbitrary and perpetuate gender-based discrimination, especially when female candidates with superior merit are excluded solely on the basis of gender-specific vacancy allocations..The Central government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, defended the gender-differentiated vacancies, asserting that the Indian Army’s operational requirements are fundamentally different from civilian employment. She highlighted that the Army operates under continuous threat along the Line of Control (LoC) and other critical borders, necessitating a high state of readiness for conventional and asymmetric warfare.Bhati argued that the JAG Branch, though primarily legal in function, is a combatant arm, and its officers are required to serve in operationally challenging environments, including attachments with frontline units for extended periods. She also opposed the petitioners’ demand for a common merit list, stating that separate Services Selection Boards (SSBs) for men and women are essential due to the physical and psychological demands of military training. She contended that mixed-gender SSBs would compromise the integrity of the selection process and that separate merit lists are a practical necessity given the Army’s distinct operational roles.Additionally, she maintained that the 50:50 gender intake ratio introduced in 2024 is a significant step towards gender parity, reflecting a broader policy shift without compromising operational efficiency.The Centre rejected the petitioners’ contention that such policies are discriminatory, arguing that the military’s unique requirements justify differential treatment.The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with Advocates Mandeep Kalra, Anushna Satapathy, Radhika Jalan, Widaphi Lyngdoh, Yashas J, Shweta Singh, Vaibhav Yadav, Paras Mohan Sharma, Shefali Tripathi, Radhika Narula, Rishabh Lekhi, Vishal Sinha and Ishita Chowdhury..The respondents were represented by ASG Bhati and Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee along with Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shagun Thakur, Kartikay Agarwal, Chitvan Singhal, Raman Yadav, Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Purnendu Bajpai, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj, Irshad Ahmed, Mahesh Singh, Ashutosh Garg, Samarth Mohanty, Abhisth Kumar, Pankaj Kumar Sharma and Vernika Tomar. .[Read Order]
