Top News

Supreme Court- Questioning the 50-50 selection criteria in the Army’s ‘Judge Advocate General’ (JAG-method) branch, the Supreme Court asked the Center that if a woman in the Indian Air Force can fly a Rafale fighter aircraft, then why are there less female officers in the genderly neutral posts of the JAG branch of the Army? A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Manmohan reserved their verdict on the petition of two officials Arnsoor Kaur and Aastha Tyagi on May 8.

The petitioners had finished fourth and fifth respectively by performing better than many of their counterparts, but they were not selected for the JAG department due to the prescribed fewer vacancies for women. The authorities challenged the “inconsistent” vacancies for men and women, saying they could not be selected as there were only three vacancies for women out of the total six posts. The bench reserved its decision and said, “We are prima facie satisfied with the case submitted by the petitioner Arnsur Kaur.”

Gender-specific vacancies- He said, “It would not only be wrong to call the policy of recruitment of male and female officers in the ratio of 70:30 (or now 50:50) from 2012 to 2023, but it would not only be wrong to call a violation of discriminatory and fundamental rights, but it will also be an encroachment of the jurisdiction of the executive which is the only competent authority to make decisions about the recruitment of male and female officers in the Indian Army. Being divided on the basis of high qualification women candidates could not be included.

Justice Manmohan said that if 10 women are eligible for JAG on the basis of merit, will they all be appointed as the JAG branch officer. The bench said that gender neutrality does not mean a ratio of 50:50, but it means no matter which gender someone is. Defeating the decision of the Center, Bhati said that on the basis of labor force assessment and requirement, all the branches of the army have gender-specific vacancies. Bhati said that gender integration in defense services is a developing process and is a matter of time to time.

The apex court said, “We direct the defendants that whatever action is required to be included in the next available training course for appointment as” Judge Advocate General ‘(JAG), starting whatever action is necessary to be started. “The bench cited a newspaper article stating that a woman fighter pilot would fly the Rafale aircraft. He said that in such a situation he is in danger of being taken captive.

Justice Dutta told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appearing on behalf of the Center and the Army, “If a woman’s Rafale fighter jet is acceptable in the Indian Air Force, then why is it so difficult for the army to include more women in JAG?” The bench was told that the other petitioner joined the Indian Navy during the pending proceedings. The apex court then questioned the Center to determine limited posts for women despite claiming the posts being neutral on a sexual basis. Bhati said that recruitment and appointment of women officers in the army including JAG branch is a progressive process.