1. Challenge to recruitment notification for Judge Advocate General branch restricting female vacancies despite higher merit, involving eligibility under Section 12, Army Act, 1950. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1175
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 772 of 2023
Decided On : 11-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the 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 the 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
For the 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 the 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
Important Points
The court affirmed that the Army's recruitment policy discriminating against women by restricting vacancies is unconstitutional, mandating a gender-neutral approach to selection for the JAG branch to ensure equality.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Gender Equality
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Army Act, 1950 - Section 12 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, and 33 - Writ Petition against discriminatory recruitment policy for women in JAG - Court held impugned notification reserving fewer vacancies for women is unconstitutional, emphasizing gender-neutral provisions in recruitment. (Paras 37, 39, 83, 112)
(B) Gender Neutrality - Consistency in assessment and opportunities regardless of gender is affirmed; combined merit lists mandated. (Paras 100, 113)
(C) Need for reform in military recruitment encompassing women’s inclusion aligns with constitutional mandates for equality. (Paras 84, 115)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Army’s notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, which permitted women's recruitment in the JAG but reserved fewer seats for them compared to men. The merit rankings showed women outperformed men, amplifying the discriminatory impact.
Findings of Court:
Notifications restricting the number of women in the Army were not backed by law and contradicted the statutory provisions allowing women in JAG. Court asserted recruitment policies should adhere to constitutional equality.
Issues: Whether Army's notification restricting women's recruitment in JAG led to indirect discrimination against women candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: Court determined that once the Army grants access to women in a branch, it cannot limit their numbers through administrative policies, affirming that constitutional rights cannot be waived and mandating strict adherence to equality principles in recruitment processes.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; Petitioner No. 1 ordered to be inducted based on merit.
(B) Gender Neutrality - Consistency in assessment and opportunities regardless of gender is affirmed; combined merit lists mandated. (Paras 100, 113)
(C) Need for reform in military recruitment encompassing women’s inclusion aligns with constitutional mandates for equality. (Paras 84, 115)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Army’s notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, which permitted women's recruitment in the JAG but reserved fewer seats for them compared to men. The merit rankings showed women outperformed men, amplifying the discriminatory impact.
Findings of Court:
Notifications restricting the number of women in the Army were not backed by law and contradicted the statutory provisions allowing women in JAG. Court asserted recruitment policies should adhere to constitutional equality.
Issues: Whether Army's notification restricting women's recruitment in JAG led to indirect discrimination against women candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: Court determined that once the Army grants access to women in a branch, it cannot limit their numbers through administrative policies, affirming that constitutional rights cannot be waived and mandating strict adherence to equality principles in recruitment processes.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; Petitioner No. 1 ordered to be inducted based on merit.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- military law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege gender-based vacancy limits are discriminatory; Respondents contend operational requirements and sovereign functions justify gender-specific induction limits. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 33 , 34 )
3. Administrative policies cannot override statutory notifications; gender-neutrality requires merit-based selection; fixed ratios cause indirect discrimination by excluding more meritorious female candidates. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 )
4. Once women are permitted to join an Army branch via notification under Section 12, Army Act, 1950, their numbers cannot be restricted by administrative policy. (Para 47 , 50 , 111 )
5. Notification restricting female vacancies held unconstitutional; combined merit list mandated; meritorious female petitioner directed for induction. (Para 83 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 117 )
6. Can the executive restrict the number of women in an Army branch after statutory notification allows their entry?
No. Once the Central Government notifies eligibility for women in a branch under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, the executive cannot impose additional restrictions on the extent of induction via administrative policy, as such power is not conferred by the Act. (Para 47 , 50 , 111 )
7. What is the legal distinction between gender-neutral and gender-equal recruitment policies?
Gender-equality involves hiring an equal number of men and women. Gender-neutrality means hiring the most meritorious candidate regardless of gender, ensuring that the best person is selected for the job without sex-based classification. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 )
8. How does a fixed gender ratio in recruitment lead to indirect discrimination?
A facially neutral ratio causes indirect discrimination when it has a disparate impact, excluding more meritorious candidates of one gender to maintain a quota, thereby perpetuating historical subordination and freezing an unjust status quo. (Para 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 99 )
9. Can fundamental rights be waived in the context of public employment in the Armed Forces?
No. Fundamental rights, particularly the right to equality, are not capable of being waived. An aggrieved person can always challenge a discriminatory policy or notification regardless of prior participation in the selection process. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 )
10. Does the combatant nature of a role justify excluding women from a branch if they are already permitted to join?
No. If women are already permitted in Combat Support Arms or Services, claiming a role is combatant to restrict numbers is untenable, especially when duties are identical and field parity has been institutionalized. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 61 , 64 , 65 , 66 )
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Primary issue |
Arguments on behalf of Petitioners |
Arguments on behalf of Respondent No.3 |
Arguments on behalf of Union of India and Army |
Rejoinder |
Additional Arguments on behalf of the Respondents |
Order dated 08th May 2025 |
Reasoning |
Since notification issued under Section 12 of ARMY ACT , 1950 permits women to join JAG, their number cannot be restricted in the manner sought to be done |
Circulars of 11th November 2011 and 14th March 2012 are untenable in law |
Argument that JAG Branch consists of primarily combatants is misconceived |
Field parity has been institutionalised |
Argument that women officers are not posted where contact with enemies is likely, has no basis |
No waiver of fundamental rights |
Constitution and Government policy towards women |
Impugned notification is unconstitutional as it reserves double the number of vacancies for males |
The professed policy of enrolment is gender-neutral and not gender-specific |
Distinction between gender-neutral and gender-equal |
Present recruitment policy leads to indirect discrimination |
As the nature of tests of male and female candidates is similar, a combined merit list ought to be prepared |
Constitutionally valid interpretation of the 2023 recruitment policy implemented w.e.f. 2024 |
Merit-based selection will improve efficiency of JAG |
Conclusion |
PRIMARY ISSUE
1. The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether Respondent-Union of India after having issued a Notification under Section 12 of the ARMY ACT , 1950 allowing induction of women in the Judge Advocate General (‘JAG’) branch could have denied admission to Petitioner No.2 (Ms.Astha Tyagi), who has achieved the fourth (4th) rank with 477 marks and Petitioner No.1 (Ms. Arshnoor Kaur), who has achieved (5th) rank with 447 marks in the merit list of women candidates in preference to Mr. Himanshu Panwar who has secured third rank with 433 marks in the merit list of men candidates, but has obtained lesser marks than the female candidate placed at Serial No.10 in the Females Merit List in pursuance to the notification dated 18th January, 2023 for the JAG Scheme 31st Course, qua Short Service Commission (‘SSC’) Course for Law Graduates (impugned notification) on the grounds that the said Notification provides for separate merit list for male and female candidates and provides for only three (03) vacancies for female candidates, as against six (06) vacancies for male candidates. It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioners have sought not only a declaration that the impugned Notification is ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution, but also publication of a common merit list irrespective of sex of the candidate and implementation of a real and effective ‘gender-neutral’ policy of recruitment in the JAG branch instead of the subsequent intake policy of the Respondents of having men and women officers in the ratio of 50:50, which has been branded by the Respondents as ‘gender-neutral’.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
2. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners stated that the selection criteria for male and female candidates in the JAG branch were not separate as they were assessed on identical parameters. Only few indicators such as physical attributes were different. He pointed out that the Service Selection Board (“SSB”) procedure for male and female candidates is identical in content, structure and evaluation, including the fifteen (15) Officer Like Qualities. The relevant portion of the procedure and testing parameters of the Officer Like Qualities considered by the SSB and the conduct thereof for recruitment to the Indian Armed Forces is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“…. Note:
1. Each candidature is tested for the above mentioned 15 OLQs.
2. There are mainly three people who test candidates for 15 OLQs they are: -
(a) Psychologist.
(b) Ground Testing Officer (GTO).
(c) Interviewing Officer.
Three officers are well trained in their fields to undertake the
