Back
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
| 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 :
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 differ
AI
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
