Top-Ranked Women Denied JAG Posts: Supreme Court Demands Answers from Centre

The Supreme Court questions the Centre on gender bias in Army’s JAG branch. Two top-ranked women officers denied posts due to limited female vacancies. Full story here.

New Delhi, May 14 – In a significant move that brings the spotlight back on gender equality in India’s armed forces, the Supreme Court has raised serious questions over the Army’s recruitment policy in its legal arm, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch. The court asked the Centre, “If a woman can fly a Rafale fighter jet in the Indian Air Force, why is it so difficult to allow more women in a gender-neutral branch like JAG?”

The strong remarks came from a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan while hearing a petition filed by two women officers — Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi — who had challenged the disproportionate allocation of vacancies between men and women in the JAG department.

Merit Ignored Due to Gender-Based Quota

Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, who secured 4th and 5th ranks respectively in the selection exam, were not selected despite outperforming several male candidates. The reason? Out of six available vacancies, only three were reserved for women.

The court expressed dissatisfaction over this arbitrary division, calling it a contradiction to the government’s own claim of gender-neutral recruitment in the JAG branch.

“Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by the petitioner Arshnoor Kaur,” said the Bench, while reserving its verdict.

SC’s Strong Observation: Combat Roles, But Not Legal Ones?

The Supreme Court drew attention to the inconsistency in policy by pointing out that women are flying high-risk missions in Rafale fighter jets — even at the risk of becoming prisoners of war — but are being denied back-end legal roles due to outdated gender norms.

Justice Datta questioned the Centre’s stand and asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared on behalf of the Centre and the Army, “If it’s permissible in the Indian Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale, then why is it difficult for the Army to allow more women in a non-combat, legal post?”

Centre’s Defence: Operational Preparedness & Progressive Policy

In defence, Bhati argued that the recruitment policies are based on a calculated manpower assessment that factors in operational preparedness. She emphasized that the transition toward gender equality in the Army is ongoing and has evolved from a 70:30 male-female ratio to a 50:50 split starting in 2024.

“To call the 50:50 ratio discriminatory would not only be incorrect but would also amount to overstepping into the executive domain,” Bhati added.

She further explained that the JAG branch plays a vital role even during operational deployments and is not just a peacetime legal desk.

Why Call it Gender-Neutral Then? Asks SC

The court, however, was not convinced. Justice Manmohan observed that true gender neutrality means appointments based purely on merit — not divided quotas.

“If 10 women qualify on merit, why can’t all 10 be selected?” he questioned. “Gender neutrality does not mean 50:50; it means gender should not matter at all.”

Separate SSBs for Men and Women: A Justified Necessity?

The Centre also cited the need for separate Services Selection Boards (SSBs) for men and women, attributing it to the nature of physical tests involved, which require close physical interaction. Bhati called gender integration an evolving process, subject to review and refinement based on operational needs.

She warned that judicial interference in such matters could potentially disrupt the Army’s operational chain of command and preparedness.

Tyagi Joins Navy During Legal Battle

While the case was ongoing, Astha Tyagi was selected into the Indian Navy, but the petition remains crucial for future aspirants facing similar bias in recruitment.

The Bench has now directed the Army to consider inducting Arshnoor Kaur into the next available training course for the JAG branch.

Final Verdict Reserved

With the verdict reserved, this case has already ignited a larger conversation around gender equality and meritocracy in India’s defence forces. The ruling could set a precedent for future military recruitment policies, pushing the system toward true gender neutrality.