DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN
Arshnoor Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. primary issue regarding women's induction in jag. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments from petitioners on recruitment policy. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. the ruling emphasizes the constitutional provisions protecting against gender discrimination in employment. (Para 10) |
| 4. arguments from respondents focusing on operational needs. (Para 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 5. rejoinder stressing on changes in women's recruitment. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 6. court's reasoning against restrictive measures and advocacy for equality. (Para 38 , 51 , 53 , 111 , 115) |
| 7. legal principles regarding equality and eligibility. (Para 39 , 42 , 84) |
| 8. conclusions directing changes to the recruitment procedure. (Para 94 , 116 , 118) |
JUDGMENT :
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 |
Dattatraya Motiram More Vs. State of Bombay
R. Viswan and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India
Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi and Rajasthan and Another
Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.