The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the Indian Army’s gender-neutral recruitment policy in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, after two highly ranked women candidates were denied selection due to fewer vacancies reserved for women. The top court reserved its verdict on May 8, 2025, while making critical observations on gender disparity in the selection process.

The matter came up in a petition filed by Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, who secured 4th and 5th ranks respectively in the selection process for the JAG branch but were not selected because only three out of six vacancies were reserved for women.

SC Bench Takes Note of Disparity in Merit-Based Selection

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan expressed dissatisfaction over the allocation of posts in a supposedly gender-neutral branch of the Army. The court observed that:

"Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by the petitioner Arshnoor Kaur."

The court directed the Army to consider her induction in the next available training course, pending the final judgment. The fact that male candidates with lower merit were selected while higher-ranked women were not was called into question as discriminatory.

Flying Rafales But Not Fit for Legal Duty?

In a sharp observation, Justice Datta cited a media report that highlighted a woman fighter pilot flying a Rafale jet and raised a pertinent question:

"If a woman can fly a Rafale and be captured as a POW, why is she not fit for JAG?"

This comparison pointed out the inconsistency in the Army’s rationale, especially in roles considered non-combat and gender-neutral, such as those in the JAG branch.

Army Defends Gender-Specific Recruitment Quotas

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and Army, defended the recruitment policy, arguing that:

• The selection ratio from 2012 to 2023 followed a 70:30 pattern (men:women).

• This has now progressed to a 50:50 policy from 2024, considering cadre health and operational needs.

• Induction policies are calibrated to operational preparedness, not arbitrary.

However, the court seemed unconvinced, especially when women with higher merit were not selected, despite the roles being labelled as gender-neutral.

Gender-Neutral Tag Questioned

Justice Manmohan questioned the true meaning of “gender neutrality”, observing that:

"Gender neutrality does not mean 50:50. It means gender should not matter at all."

He further asked if 10 women were to qualify in merit, would all be inducted or would they be limited to the fixed quota? The question highlighted the contradiction between merit-based selection and gender-specific quotas.

Centre’s Stand on Operational Considerations

The Centre maintained that the JAG branch is not a peacetime legal advisory role alone. It is deeply integrated with operational functions, especially during military actions. Bhati argued that:

• Deployment restrictions for women are based on operational and threat considerations.

• Separate SSBs (Services Selection Boards) for men and women are necessary due to intensive physical interactions in testing.

The government also described its position as a “conscious decision” to avoid placing women in frontline combat scenarios, stating that such deployments may expose them to enemy contact.

Tyagi Joins Navy Amid Court Proceedings

While the case was being heard, co-petitioner Astha Tyagi joined the Indian Navy, highlighting the irony and impact of restrictive opportunities in the Army. Her case continues to support the broader issue of merit versus restricted intake for women.

SC Verdict Reserved, But Raises Larger Questions

Although the verdict is reserved, the court’s pointed queries have raised broader policy and constitutional concerns:

• Is 50:50 selection in a gender-neutral post truly fair if merit is compromised?

• Why should gender be a criterion in legal roles when women are already in combat-like roles?

• Does the current policy violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination)?

Systemic Reforms in Recruitment?

This case echoes past landmark decisions where the Supreme Court intervened to secure equal rights for women in the military, such as granting permanent commission. If the verdict goes in favour of the petitioners, it may set a new precedent for merit-based selection, regardless of gender.

The outcome will be closely watched not just by legal professionals and military aspirants, but by gender rights advocates across the country.

Final Thoughts

The ongoing legal battle underscores the complex tension between gender equality and military structure. The Supreme Court’s final verdict could either affirm the current policy framework or mandate a more inclusive, merit-based system in the Indian Army’s legal branch.

Key Questions the Court is Evaluating:

• Can a policy be labelled gender-neutral when gender-specific vacancies exist?

• Should merit alone be the deciding factor in non-combat roles like JAG?

• Is there a constitutional violation in restricting women’s representation based on legacy norms?

This case has the potential to reshape recruitment strategies, influence defence policy reforms, and trigger deeper scrutiny into the true implementation of gender neutrality in India’s armed forces.

The Upcoming IPOs in this week and coming weeks are Integrity Borana Weaves, Belrise Industries, Wagons Learning.

The Current active IPO are Accretion Pharmaceuticals, Integrity Infrabuild Developers and Virtual Galaxy Infotech.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.

Join our Trading with CA Abhay Telegram Channel for regular Stock Market Trading and Investment Calls by CA Abhay Varn - SEBI Registered Research Analyst.