NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday wondered why, if a woman can fly the Rafale, the Army is not appointing women to the Judge Advocate General position. “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 Judge Advocate General [JAG] post) in the Army,” observed a two-judge bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta.
The bench questioned the Centre about earmarking fewer positions for women, despite claiming the posts to be gender neutral. While observing this, the SC recently reserved judgment in a writ petition filed by two women seeking appointment to the post of JAG (Indian Army) Entry Scheme, challenging the disproportionate vacancies for men and women.
Petitioners, Arshnoor Kaur and another person, claimed that though they secured fourth and fifth positions, respectively, and are higher in merit than male candidates, they could not be selected due to the fewer vacancies earmarked for women.
The court granted interim relief to petitioner 1, Kaur, and directed the Union and the Army to induct her in the next available training course for appointment as a JAG officer.
The court questioned the Union for earmarking fewer posts for women, despite claiming the posts to be gender neutral. The court was unconvinced by the arguments submitted by the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the JAG posts are gender neutral and that a 50:50 ratio is the selection ratio from 2023 onwards.
“Gender neutrality does not mean 50:50 per cent. Gender neutrality means it does not matter which gender you come from,” the court observed.