NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the induction of the woman petitioner, Arshnoor Kaur, into the JAG (Judge Advocate General) post in the Indian Army.
It also questioned the Union over allocating fewer posts for women, despite claiming the posts to be 'gender neutral'.
"No nation can be secure if such policies are followed. The executive cannot reserve vacancies for men. The fewer vacancies embarked for women, 3 in number compared to 6 for men, are arbitrary and cannot be allowed under the guise of induction."
"The true meaning of gender neutrality and the 2023 rules is that the Union shall select the most meritorious candidates. Restricting the seats of women is violative of right to equality," said a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Manmohan.
Granting relief to the petitioner, Kaur, the top court directed the Centre to conduct recruitment in the aforesaid manner and publish a combined merit list for all candidates, including men and women.
It, however, refused to grant any relief to the second petitioner. The court rejected the submissions of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati that the JAG posts are gender neutral and that a 50:50 ratio is the selection ratio from 2023 onwards.
"The Union is directed to induct petitioner 1 to be commissioned in the JAG department. The second petitioner is not entitled to any relief," the top court added in its verdict.
The Supreme Court delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by two women -- Kaur and another one -- seeking appointment to the post of JAG (Indian Army) Entry Scheme, challenging the disproportionate vacancies for men and women.
"In one of the hearings, the top court had observed that if it's permissible in the Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale, what is so very difficult for the Army to appoint them in the Army."
The petitioners -- Arshnoor Kaur and one another -- claimed that though they have secured 4th and 5th positions, respectively, and are higher in merit than male candidates, they could not be selected due to the fewer vacancies earmarked for women.
It is significant to note that an Army JAG officer is a legally qualified officer within the Indian Army, serving as a legal advisor and upholding military law.
The JAG handle legal matters, including disciplinary actions and litigation, and ensure the enforcement of military law.
JAG officers also provide legal counsel and assistance to the Army in various matters, including human rights and the rule of law.
In earlier hearings, Bhati defended that the gender-specific vacancies are there in all branches of the Army, and it is based on manpower assessment and requirement.
"Medical and dental branches are exclusively for women, and men are not permitted. In fact, there are writ petitions before the Delhi High Court that men should be allowed in these branches," she had argued.