The Indian Army's judge advocate general (JAG) branch is the 'nodal legal agency' responsible for advising it on all legal matters, representing the forces in court, and serving as the single point of contact with the judicial system.
Recruitment to the branch is open to both men and women through the Short Service Commission, with identical eligibility requirements, exams and training. In 2023, the army issued a notification earmarking six vacancies for men and only three for women. This meant that even when women scored higher than men, they could be excluded solely because of gender. Two women who appeared for the 2023 exam, and who scored more than the selected men in the merit list, challenged this policy before the Supreme Court (Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India). They argued that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and violated their constitutional right to equality.
In a decisive ruling, the court struck down the 6:3 ratio. It held that when men and women meet identical standards for the same role, reserving more seats for men is unconstitutional and contrary to the true meaning of gender neutrality.
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require that equals be treated equally, and unequals unequally. In JAG recruitment, men and women take the same exam, are assessed on the same 15 'Officer Like Qualities', and face identical training, operational and service conditions. Although the entry process and duties are the same for men and women, the State argued that, based on other factors, it could control the 'extent of induction' of male and female officers. In practice, this translated into reserving twice as many posts for men. The court held that this was not justified as 'managing induction capacity' but amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.
Reservations in India are a form of affirmative action designed to correct historical injustice, level the playing field and secure representation for marginalised groups. There is an absurdity in applying this logic in reverse - reserving more seats for men in a field that is historically male-dominated. In the military context, women officers have had to fight for decades for permanent commission, command roles and access to non-combat branches free from arbitrary restrictions. The top court in Babita Puniya case recognised that these barriers were rooted in 'sex stereotypes' about women's roles in society and the family. The Kaur judgment builds on that foundation, treating numerical caps on women in JAG as another form of such stereotyping.
In this recruitment cycle, women candidates outperformed men. Kaur scored 447 marks, a male candidate selected under the men's quota scored 433. The judgment succinctly and perfectly crystallises an important principle: affirmative action can be a floor to correct past exclusion, but it must never become a ceiling that limits meritorious candidates from these under-represented groups. A useful analogy is the reservation of 33% of Lok Sabha seats for women. This does not mean the remaining 67% must be filled by men, it guarantees a minimum for women, leaving the rest open to whoever secures the mandate.
The top court's interpretation of 'gender neutrality' reflects this logic. It directed that recruitment for JAG must be from a combined merit list, but with at least 50% of seats allocated to women. Crucially, this 50% is not a ceiling - if more than half the top candidates are women, all of them must be selected. It is an approach reminiscent of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's quip that there would be enough women on the 9-seat US Supreme Court 'when there are nine'.
In perhaps its most resonant observation, the court stated: 'No nation can be secure when half of its population... is held back.' This is not mere rhetoric. It is a constitutional imperative: parity is not a concession granted to women, but a necessary condition for a truly representative and effective military.
The writer is research fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
Recruitment to the branch is open to both men and women through the Short Service Commission, with identical eligibility requirements, exams and training. In 2023, the army issued a notification earmarking six vacancies for men and only three for women. This meant that even when women scored higher than men, they could be excluded solely because of gender. Two women who appeared for the 2023 exam, and who scored more than the selected men in the merit list, challenged this policy before the Supreme Court (Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India). They argued that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and violated their constitutional right to equality.
In a decisive ruling, the court struck down the 6:3 ratio. It held that when men and women meet identical standards for the same role, reserving more seats for men is unconstitutional and contrary to the true meaning of gender neutrality.
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require that equals be treated equally, and unequals unequally. In JAG recruitment, men and women take the same exam, are assessed on the same 15 'Officer Like Qualities', and face identical training, operational and service conditions. Although the entry process and duties are the same for men and women, the State argued that, based on other factors, it could control the 'extent of induction' of male and female officers. In practice, this translated into reserving twice as many posts for men. The court held that this was not justified as 'managing induction capacity' but amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.
Reservations in India are a form of affirmative action designed to correct historical injustice, level the playing field and secure representation for marginalised groups. There is an absurdity in applying this logic in reverse - reserving more seats for men in a field that is historically male-dominated. In the military context, women officers have had to fight for decades for permanent commission, command roles and access to non-combat branches free from arbitrary restrictions. The top court in Babita Puniya case recognised that these barriers were rooted in 'sex stereotypes' about women's roles in society and the family. The Kaur judgment builds on that foundation, treating numerical caps on women in JAG as another form of such stereotyping.
In this recruitment cycle, women candidates outperformed men. Kaur scored 447 marks, a male candidate selected under the men's quota scored 433. The judgment succinctly and perfectly crystallises an important principle: affirmative action can be a floor to correct past exclusion, but it must never become a ceiling that limits meritorious candidates from these under-represented groups. A useful analogy is the reservation of 33% of Lok Sabha seats for women. This does not mean the remaining 67% must be filled by men, it guarantees a minimum for women, leaving the rest open to whoever secures the mandate.
The top court's interpretation of 'gender neutrality' reflects this logic. It directed that recruitment for JAG must be from a combined merit list, but with at least 50% of seats allocated to women. Crucially, this 50% is not a ceiling - if more than half the top candidates are women, all of them must be selected. It is an approach reminiscent of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's quip that there would be enough women on the 9-seat US Supreme Court 'when there are nine'.
In perhaps its most resonant observation, the court stated: 'No nation can be secure when half of its population... is held back.' This is not mere rhetoric. It is a constitutional imperative: parity is not a concession granted to women, but a necessary condition for a truly representative and effective military.
The writer is research fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
You may also like
JPC examining 2 bills on ONOE gets extension till winter session
Farmer groups hail PM Modi's bold stand against US trade tariffs
Missing Claire Bennett: Fears grow after mum's bag found as daughter issues plea
UP STF Busts Inter-State Gang Adulterating Petrol & Diesel
Christine McGuinness says 'it's my fault' and reveals surprising truth behind Paddy split
