Supreme Court Questions Centre on Gender Bias in Army’s JAG Selection Policy

Bench Reserves Verdict in Case of Women Officers Denied Selection Despite Higher Merit​

New Delhi, May 14 — The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the gender-based allocation of vacancies in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, questioning why fewer women are selected despite the posts being labeled as gender-neutral.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, while hearing a petition filed by officers Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, reserved its verdict on May 8. The officers, who ranked 4th and 5th respectively in the merit list, were denied selection due to a restricted number of vacancies earmarked for women, only three out of six.

"If Women Can Fly Rafale Jets, Why Not JAG?"​

The bench noted the contradiction in the Centre’s stance, referring to a media article about a woman IAF pilot flying a Rafale fighter jet. Justice Datta remarked, “If it’s permissible in the Indian Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale fighter jet, then why is it so difficult for the Army to allow more women in JAG?”

Highlighting the disparity, the court directed that Arshnoor Kaur should be inducted into the next available JAG training course. Tyagi, the second petitioner, has since joined the Indian Navy.

Gender-Neutral in Name Only?​

The court questioned the rationale behind the Centre’s 50:50 intake policy if posts are claimed to be gender-neutral. Justice Manmohan emphasized that gender neutrality should mean selection based solely on merit, not equal gender distribution.

“If 10 women qualify based on merit, will all 10 be selected?” he asked, challenging the foundational logic of bifurcated vacancy allocations.

Centre Defends Policy as Operationally Calibrated​

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre and the Army, defended the gender-specific intake system. She described it as a “progressive process” aligned with operational readiness and cadre health, evolving from a 70:30 ratio to 50:50 starting in 2024.

Bhati asserted that the JAG branch’s role extends beyond peacetime legal advisories and is vital to operational preparedness. She argued that judicial intervention in intake policies could disrupt command structures and readiness.

She also noted that separate SSBs (Services Selection Boards) for men and women are essential due to the nature of the physical and psychological evaluations involved.

Combat Deployment and Threat Perception​

In response to earlier court queries about why JAG women officers were not deployed in combat zones, Bhati stated it was a “conscious decision” by the government due to the risk of enemy contact, reiterating the need for careful consideration in frontline postings.

Final Verdict Awaited​

While the Supreme Court has not yet delivered its final judgment, its observations reflect a strong push for reevaluating gender-based limitations within the Army’s legal branch. The outcome could potentially pave the way for greater merit-based inclusion of women in the Indian Army’s officer cadre.