The Supreme Court has raised strong questions over the limited representation of women in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army, despite the posts being termed “gender neutral.” The court observed that if women can fly Rafale fighter jets in the Indian Air Force, there should be no obstacle to their greater induction in the Army’s legal branch.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan reserved its verdict on May 8 in a case filed by Army officers Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi. Both officers ranked higher in merit than male counterparts but were denied selection for JAG posts due to restricted vacancies for women. Of the six available posts, only three were allocated for female candidates.
“Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by petitioner Arshnoor Kaur,” the bench noted. The court directed the Centre and the Army to consider her induction in the next available training course for JAG appointment.
The bench cited a news report about a woman pilot flying a Rafale aircraft, stating, “If it’s permissible in the Indian Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale fighter jet and be susceptible to being a prisoner of war, why is it so difficult for the Army to allow more women in JAG?” Justice Datta asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre and the Army.
The court was informed that co-petitioner Astha Tyagi had since joined the Indian Navy.
The judges questioned the rationale behind continuing with gender-based quotas in a so-called gender-neutral branch. Justice Manmohan pointedly asked, “If 10 women qualify for JAG on the basis of merit, should all of them not be inducted?” He clarified that gender neutrality means merit should prevail, not a fixed ratio.
Defending the Army’s policy, Bhati termed the induction of women a “progressive process” aligned with operational preparedness. She maintained that the 70:30 male-female intake ratio, revised to 50:50 from 2024, is based on manpower assessment and operational needs, which fall under the exclusive domain of the executive.
“To call this ratio discriminatory would transgress into matters solely under executive competence,” Bhati submitted.
She explained that JAG officers play a critical role beyond legal advisory, contributing to operational readiness and military discipline. The conduct of separate SSBs for men and women was also justified due to the nature of tests involving close physical interaction.
Responding to the court’s earlier query on why women JAG officers are not deployed in combat zones, Bhati said it is a conscious policy decision by the government to avoid exposing women officers to frontline combat risks and potential enemy contact.
The court has reserved its decision, which is expected to have significant implications for the evolving role of women in the Indian Armed Forces.
