Supreme Court Strikes Down Indian Army’s Gender-Based Quota for JAG Posts
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 11) struck down the Indian Army’s policy of reserving more posts in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch for men and limiting the number for women.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan ruled that true gender neutrality means selecting the most meritorious candidates from a common list, regardless of gender. The Court directed the Union Government and the Indian Army to stop dividing JAG vacancies between men and women, and to recruit purely on merit.
The Bench noted that the Army had allowed women into the JAG branch under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, but its policy of giving six posts to men and only three to women violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. It said such a quota for men, disguised as an “induction policy,” was unconstitutional.
The Court ordered that a common merit list — including marks of all candidates — be made public. It also observed that male and female officers in JAG have the same selection criteria, tests, and service conditions. Therefore, recruitment must be entirely merit-based.
To address past discrimination, the Court said at least 50% of vacancies should be given to women until the backlog is cleared. However, it clarified that restricting women to 50% even if they score higher than men would still violate the right to equality.
In this case, Petitioner Arshnoor Kaur had scored 447 marks, higher than a male candidate who got 433 marks but was selected because of the male quota. The Court directed that she be inducted into the next available JAG training course. The second petitioner has already joined the Navy, and her continuation will depend on her choice.
The Court rejected the Army’s argument that women could face risks if posted near international borders, stating that merit — not gender — should decide appointments. It concluded that a nation cannot be secure if it holds back half its talent.
This judgment came in response to a petition challenging the unequal allocation of JAG vacancies — three for women and six for men — in the 31st Course of the JAG Entry Scheme.
