The Supreme Court on Monday invalidated the Indian Army’s policy of reserving six Judge Advocate General (JAG) posts for men and only three for women, holding the arrangement to be arbitrary and violative of the right to equality.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan directed the Union government to prepare a single merit list for all eligible candidates, irrespective of gender.
“The executive cannot reserve vacancies for men. The seats of 6 for men and 3 for women is arbitrary and cannot be allowed under the guise of induction. True meaning of gender neutrality and 2023 rules is that Union shall select the most meritorious candidates. Restricting the seats of women is violative of right to equality … No nation can be secure if such policies are followed,” the Court observed, ordering that future recruitment be conducted on the basis of a unified merit list.
Background of the Case
The verdict came on petitions filed by two women who had applied for the JAG posts and challenged the 2023 recruitment notification earmarking six vacancies for men and three for women. Their counsel pointed out that both petitioners had secured the fourth and fifth ranks in the merit list but were denied selection due to the gender-based allocation of posts.
The Supreme Court had issued notice in August 2023 and directed that two vacancies be kept vacant pending the outcome of the case. In May 2025, while reserving its verdict, the Bench noted it was “prima facie” satisfied with one petitioner’s claim and directed her induction.
Court’s Findings
The Court rejected the Union’s defence, presented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, that the posts were gender neutral and that a 50:50 selection ratio applied from 2023 onwards. It questioned why fewer seats were reserved for women despite the claim of neutrality.
Finalising its interim order, the Court directed the appointment of the first petitioner to the JAG department, noting: “Union is directed to induct petitioner 1 to be commissioned in JAG department. The second petitioner is not entitled to any relief.”
