Once Women Are Allowed in JAG Under Army Act, Their Numbers Cannot Be Arbitrarily Capped: Supreme Court

“Merit Must Be Given a Chance… No Nation Can Be Secure When Half Its Population Is Held Back”, In a judgment that the Bench said was about “putting merit back in its rightful place,” the Supreme Court, dismantled the Army’s long-standing practice of reserving more seats for men than for women in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch despite identical selection standards.

The case challenged the 2023 JAG recruitment notification that gave six vacancies to men and only three to women. The Court held that this “double reservation” for men violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution as well as Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, which governs women’s eligibility in the Army.

“Once the Service Headquarters decides to induct women officers in a particular branch… it cannot restrict their numbers and/or make a reservation for male officers under the guise of ‘extent of induction’,” the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan declared.

A Battle Over Equal Footing in the Legal Arm of the Army

Petitioner Arshnoor Kaur had scored 447 marks—more than a male candidate selected with 433 marks—yet was denied entry solely because she was in the women’s merit list, which was capped at three seats. The Court noted that even the tenth-ranked woman had higher marks than the third-ranked man.

The petition argued that the JAG selection process is “identical for men and women… only a few physical indicators differ,” and that the Army’s own press release in March 2023 called the process “gender-neutral.”

The Union of India defended the policy as necessary for “operational efficiency” and claimed JAG officers were “combatants” who could be deployed in war zones, where women were not posted in certain roles. The Bench was not persuaded, noting, “With only about 285 JAG officers in a force of over 1.4 million… it is an extreme stretch to claim that because there may be JAG deployment at the time of war, women ought to be excluded.”

Circulars and Combat Arguments Torn Down

The Court found the Army’s reliance on 2011 and 2012 circulars “untenable in law” as they conflicted with statutory notifications under Section 12. These instructions, it said, carried “deeply entrenched… stereotypical and constitutionally flawed notions” about women’s capabilities, already rejected in Babita Puniya.

As for the “combatant” claim, the judgment dissected the JAG role, calling it primarily legal and administrative: “The submission… that being a combatant is a pre-requisite to be a JAG officer is incompatible with the job description.”

From ‘Gender-Neutral’ on Paper to Discrimination in Practice

Perhaps the sharpest criticism came when the Bench addressed the Army’s so-called “gender-neutral” 2023 policy, which implemented a 50:50 male-female intake. While the term might sound fair, the Court said it was “anything but gender-neutral in application and practice.”

“The practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates has the effect of perpetuating the status quo… The evidence of disparate treatment is writ large in the form of the merit list… despite their performance, the meritorious women candidates are not being selected only due to their gender.”

The Court stressed the difference between “gender-equality” and “gender-neutrality”: “If the employer hires the best candidate for the job regardless of gender, it would be gender-neutral… gender-equality, on the other hand, is hiring equal numbers of men and women.”

No Waiver of Rights, No Hiding Behind Policy

Rejecting arguments that the petitioners had “waived” their rights by participating in the process, the Court reminded that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived: “It is not open to the Union of India to contend that a person is not entitled to enforce his/her Fundamental Rights because he/she has waived it.”

The judgment also criticised the opacity of the recruitment process, noting that candidate marks were not disclosed until the case reached court.

Merit List Must Be Common, Marks Must Be Public

As men and women undergo the same SSB tests, the Court ordered that “a combined merit list ought to be prepared” and that all future JAG recruitment must publish both the list and the marks of all candidates.

It clarified that the Union may still allocate “not less than 50%” of vacancies to women to correct historical under-representation, but this floor cannot be turned into a ceiling when women outperform men.

A Final Word from the Bench

The judgment closed with a reminder of the larger stakes: “This Court agrees with the view… that no nation can be secure, when half of its population (i.e. its women force) is held back.”

Directing the Army to induct Arshnoor Kaur in the next available JAG training course, the Bench made clear that constitutional equality, not administrative convenience, must guide recruitment in India’s armed forces.

Date of Decision: August 11, 2025