SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN GENDER-BASED QUOTA IN ARMY’S JAG RECRUITMENT: MERIT MUST PREVAIL OVER GENDER
In a landmark judgment reinforcing gender equality in the armed forces, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on August 11, 2025, in case of Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 772 of 2023). The Two-Judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, struck down the Indian Army’s discriminatory recruitment policy for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, which allocated a disproportionate number of vacancies to male candidates despite women consistently demonstrating superior merit in the selection process.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from the Army’s 2023 recruitment notification for the JAG Scheme 31st Course, which reserved only three vacancies for female candidates while allocating six vacancies for male candidates. This gender-based allocation led to a manifest injustice where highly meritorious women candidates were denied selection in favour of less qualified male candidates.
The Petitioners, Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, had secured the 5th and 4th ranks respectively in the overall merit assessment, scoring 447 and 477 marks. Despite their superior performance, they were denied admission due to the restrictive gender-based quota system. In stark contrast, Himanshu Panwar, who secured the 3rd rank in the men’s merit list with only 433 marks—significantly lower than both petitioners—was selected for admission.
Key Issues
- Whether the Union of India, having issued a notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, permitting women’s induction into the JAG branch, could subsequently restrict their numbers through administrative policies or instructions under the guise of ‘extent of induction’.
- Whether the practice of maintaining separate merit lists for male and female candidates, coupled with disproportionate vacancy allocation, violated the fundamental rights to equality enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Army’s professed ‘gender-neutral’ recruitment policy was genuinely neutral in application or discriminatory in practice, despite claims of achieving gender equality through a 50:50 ratio implementation from 2024 onwards.
Arguments and Contentions
Petitioners’ Arguments
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Petitioners, emphasized that the selection criteria and evaluation parameters for both male and female candidates in the JAG branch were substantially identical, with only minor variations in certain physical attributes. The Service Selection Board (SSB) procedure, including the assessment of fifteen officer like qualities, was conducted uniformly for all candidates regardless of gender.
The Petitioners further contended that any attempt to treat men and women separately in JAG recruitment lacked rational basis and violated constitutional principles, particularly when no empirical data supported claims of “operational and functional requirements” necessitating gender-based restrictions.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, defended the policy on grounds of military necessity and operational requirements. The Government argued that defence force maintenance was a sovereign function, empowering Service Headquarters to determine women officer induction, including the ‘extent of induction’ to ensure fighting efficiency, combat effectiveness, and operational functionality. They further argued that determination of vacancies was based on wartime requirements to maintain optimal functional and operational readiness, making the policy gender-specific rather than gender-neutral.
Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning
- Constitutional Analysis
The Court emphasized that Articles 14, 15, and 16 forms an integrated string of constitutional rights firmly guaranteeing equality, supplementing each other to recognize equal opportunity for all citizens in public employment irrespective of religion, race, caste, place of birth, or gender.
While acknowledging that Article 33 empowers Parliament to modify Fundamental Rights for Armed Forces members, the Court stressed that such modifications must be made through parliamentary law and cannot be extended through executive policies or administrative instructions. The Court held that any restrictions on Fundamental Rights must be explicitly spelled out in the Army Act, 1950, and the Union of India cannot impose restrictions beyond those specifically authorized by the statute.
- Merit-Based Selection Imperative
The Court distinguished between “gender-neutral” and “gender-equal” policies, noting that genuine gender neutrality requires selection of the most meritorious candidates regardless of gender, while gender equality merely involves hiring equal numbers of men and women. The Court found that the Army’s practice of recruiting equal numbers of male and female candidates was “neutral in form but discriminatory in practice,” having adverse impact on more meritorious women candidates.
- Rejection of Combat Deployment Arguments
The Supreme Court decisively rejected the Government’s arguments regarding combat deployment restrictions for women officers. The Court noted that women officers were already serving in high-risk operational environments.
Court’s Directions and Implementation
The Court directed the immediate induction of Arshnoor Kaur into the next available JAG training course, recognizing that her exclusion despite superior merit constituted indirect discrimination violating constitutional equality guarantees.
The Court issued the following directions for future recruitment processes:
- First, the Union of India and Indian Army were directed to conduct all future JAG recruitment without gender-based seat allocation or restrictions, ensuring that if multiple women qualify based on merit, all should be appointed without artificial caps.
- Second, the Court directed that a unified merit list be prepared and published for all JAG candidates, regardless of gender, and that individual scores be disclosed publicly to uphold transparency in the selection process.
- Third, the Court clarified that the true interpretation of the 2023 recruitment policy should ensure selection of the most meritorious candidates regardless of gender, with at least 50% of vacancies allocated to women as compensatory measure for historical underrepresentation, but without imposing any upper limit on women’s selection based on merit.
Conclusion
By mandating merit-based selection and rejecting artificial gender-based restrictions, the Supreme Court has reinforced the fundamental constitutional principle that excellence should be the sole criterion for public service opportunities. The decision not only provides justice to the immediate Petitioners but establishes important precedent for challenging discriminatory practices that masquerade as gender-neutral policies. As the Court observed, true gender neutrality lies in ensuring that the most capable candidates serve the nation, regardless of their gender, thereby strengthening both institutional effectiveness and constitutional values.
YASH HARI DIXIT
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Editor’s Comments
The rise of the Indian woman in all spheres of society has been phenomenal in the last few decades. Seeing women in important positions, not only in India, but also overseas, shows the extent of the rise. It also shows that women are capable of handling any type of role. This Supreme Court judgment endorses this fact and is a big victory for all those Indian women who have to fight that extra mile to reach where they have reached.
SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Advocate and Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Videos, titled “Religion and the Law in India |Constitutional Rights Explained |Advocate Sushila Ram Varma| & “भारत में धर्म और कानून | आपके संवैधानिक अधिकार | एडवोकेट सुषीला राम वर्मा” can be viewed at the Link below:
Leave a Reply