High Court overturns biased quotas for male lawyers in Judge Advocate General positions
The Supreme Court of India has ruled against the Indian Army's policy that reserved fewer Judge Advocate General (JAG) vacancies for women compared to men, declaring that the policy violates the right to equality and the Constitution's equality guarantees.
In a landmark verdict, the Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, ordered that a single unified merit list must be prepared for all candidates regardless of gender, selecting purely on merit. The ruling was passed on a petition filed by two women who sought appointment to the post of JAG (Indian Army).
The policy, which allocated six vacancies for men and only three for women, was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, amounting to "reservation for male officers under the guise of induction." The Court emphasized that gender neutrality means recruitment on merit without any gender-based caps or quotas, since JAG officers serve in the same cadre with identical conditions.
The judgment arose after the two female petitioners, who ranked higher in the women's merit list, were denied selection in favor of lower-ranked male candidates due to the gender quota system. The Court noted the difference between gender neutrality and gender equality, stating that by restricting female candidates, the Army had conflated the two concepts and restricted women’s opportunities.
The Court declared the Army’s separate male and female merit lists and gender-based vacancy reservations unconstitutional and directed a combined merit list to be used henceforth for JAG recruitment. The Court finalised its earlier directive to appoint the first petitioner to the JAG post in its ruling today.
However, the Court did not grant any relief to the second petitioner. The Court was not persuaded by the submissions of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the JAG posts are gender neutral. The Court's ruling today did not base its decision on the 50:50 ratio submission from 2023 onwards by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.
The case, known as Arshnoor Kaur v. Union Of India, was reserved by the Supreme Court in May this year, and the ruling was given on Monday. The Court questioned the Union of India for keeping fewer posts vacant for women, despite claiming the posts to be gender neutral. The Court directed that two notified vacancies be kept vacant pending a final decision.
Sources: 1. The Indian Express 2. The Hindu 3. NDTV 4. Live Law 5. Bar and Bench
- The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the two female petitioners highlights the importance of gender neutrality in education and self-development, promoting personal growth and fairness in career development opportunities.
- The policy of separate merit lists and gender-based vacancy reservations in the Indian Army's Judge Advocate General (JAG) recruitment process was deemed unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for policy and legislation reform in maintaining equality and equity.
- The ongoing case of Arshnoor Kaur v. Union Of India and its eventual ruling are prominent examples of how general news coverage can spark debates and take actions in addressing inequalities, advocating for skills training and equal opportunities for all.
