Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of and Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that once a notification permits induction of women into the Judge Advocate General branch, their numbers cannot be restricted by a subsequent administrative policy. The court directed that future recruitment to the branch be conducted by preparing and publishing a common merit list for all candidates, irrespective of gender, and by making public the marks obtained by each candidate. The court further ordered the induction of a petitioner in the next available training course. It recorded that its decision was based on implementing the Constitution and the mandate of law.

The case arose from a recruitment notification dated 18 January 2023 for the JAG Scheme 31st Course. The notification provided separate merit lists for male and female candidates, with six vacancies for male candidates and three for female candidates. Two petitioners, both female candidates, challenged the notification as contrary to Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19 of the Constitution. They contended that despite securing higher marks than certain selected male candidates, they were denied selection because of the separate merit list system.

Also Read: S.142(2)(a) NI Act | Complaint Lies Where Payee’s Bank Is Located, Not Where Cheque Is Presented: Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction In Cheque Bounce Cases

Petitioner No. 1, Astha Tyagi, secured 477 marks and Petitioner No. 2, Arshnoor Kaur, secured 447 marks in the women’s merit list, ranking fourth and fifth respectively. They were not selected, while Respondent No. 3, a male candidate, secured 433 marks and was selected, ranking third in the men’s merit list. The petitioners argued that the selection criteria for both genders were identical, assessed on the same 15 Officer Like Qualities by the same procedure through the Service Selection Board (SSB). This included identical Stage I and Stage II testing, covering psychological tests, group tasks, and interviews. The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the minor variation in the Individual Obstacles Task did not affect the uniformity of the marking scheme.

The respondents, representing the Union of India and the Army, argued that separate merit lists were justified as gender integration in the defence services is an evolving process aligned with operational needs and subject to periodic review. They submitted that a 50:50 intake policy from 2024 was designed in consideration of cadre health and deployment restrictions. They stated that women officers are not deployed in areas of direct contact with the enemy or in counter-insurgency or counter-terror roles.

The petitioners rebutted by citing examples of women officers serving in extreme conditions and high-responsibility roles, such as Captain Shiva Chouhan’s posting at Siachen Glacier and Group Captain Shaliza Dhami’s command of a frontline combat unit in the Indian Air Force. They argued that these examples demonstrated that there is no operational bar to such deployment.

The court recorded that once Service Headquarters decides to induct women officers in a particular branch or corps by a notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, it cannot restrict their numbers and/or make a reservation for male officers by way of a policy or administrative instruction under the guise of ‘extent of induction’. It stated that accepting the respondents’ contention would amount to "setting at naught" the notification issued under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950.

It observed that the argument that the JAG branch consists primarily of combatants was misconceived. The court noted that field parity has been institutionalised and that women officers are entrusted with complex and high-risk tasks, including in combat zones and militant-prone areas. It recorded that there exists no legal or operational bar, express or implied, that restricts deployment based on gender at peace locations.

The court stated that while the respondents’ professed enrolment policy was gender-neutral, its implementation led to indirect discrimination. It quoted the Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution to note that ostensibly gender-neutral rules can be based on male standards and values, thereby failing to be truly neutral. It held that the present recruitment policy resulted in a less meritorious male candidate being selected over more meritorious female candidates, amounting to indirect discrimination.

It recorded that since the selection tests were similar for male and female candidates, a common merit list ought to be prepared. It referred to its earlier order dated 8 May 2025 directing that female candidates be appointed as per their position in a select list and that future selections use a gender-neutral formula.

Following its extensive reasoning, the court issued several clear directives. First, the court, in considering the marks of the petitioners and the third respondent, Mr. Himanshu Panwar, who secured 433 marks, directed the respondents, "Union of India and Army to induct Petitioner No.1 in the next available training course for being commissioned in the JAG Department of Indian Army." The court's rationale was that since Mr. Panwar, despite securing third rank in the men's merit list, had obtained fewer marks than the female candidate placed at Serial No. 10 in the female merit list, his selection amounted to "indirect discrimination" and he was therefore "not entitled to any relief."

Also Read: Juvenile Over 16 Years Accused Of Heinous Offence Also Entitled To Bail Under Section 12 JJ Act | Patna High Court Quashes Denial As Contrary To Law And Facts

Second, and perhaps most broadly impactful, the court issued a general directive for all future recruitment. The court directed the "Union of India to henceforth conduct recruitment in the aforesaid manner as well as publish a common merit list for all JAG candidates (i.e. for all male and female candidates) and make the merit list public as well as the marks obtained by all candidates participating in the selection process."

The court concluded by clarifying its role in the matter, stating, "This Court clarifies that it is not imposing its own views or predilection on the Army but is implementing the Constitution and the mandate of law." It further agreed with the view that "'no nation can be secure, when half of its population (i.e. its women force) is held back'." With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Ishita Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Musharraf Shrivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Saurav Gaur, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj, AOR Ms. Vernika Tomar, AOR

Case Title: Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 954

Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 772 of 2023

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan