SC Army’s Gender Quota: Merit, Not Sex, Must Decide JAG Selection

In a landmark decision on August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of India brought the curtain down on the Army’s longstanding practice of reserving a larger share of Judge Advocate General (JAG) vacancies for men, terming it an “arbitrary” and “unconstitutional” violation of the fundamental right to equality.

What Sparked the Case?

The litigation was triggered by the experience of Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi two women who soared to 4th and 5th rank in the women’s merit list for JAG recruitment, outperforming several men, yet were denied entry because only three of the nine seats were earmarked for women, while the rest were locked for men.

Notably, Ms. Kaur, with 447 marks, scored higher than her male counterpart (433 marks) who filled a lower-ranked “men’s seat.” The policy meant far less meritorious men were selected over better-performing women, solely on the basis of gender.

The Army, relying on a so-called “gender-neutral” 50:50 selection policy adopted in 2024 and pre-2024 ratios even less favourable to women, argued that different operational and functional requirements justified separate merit lists and seat allocation.

Officials contended that JAG officers were combatants and that postings and operational deployments differed for men and women.

What Court Said?

Once a notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, permits women in JAG, neither the Army nor the Union of India can restrict their number via policy or administrative instruction. The Constitution only allows the Legislature (through explicit law), not the executive, to limit fundamental rights like equality.

The same SSB evaluation, selection criteria, job roles, and conditions of service apply for both men and women in JAG. The Court debunked the Army’s attempt to treat JAG as primarily “combatant,” emphasising examples of women excelling in operational and even high-risk assignments.

The so-called gender-neutral 50:50 ratio, in reality, put a ceiling on women’s selection. This, the Court held, amounted to indirect discrimination formally neutral but substantively damaging to women by blocking more qualified candidates from appointment, perpetuating status quo biases and sidelining true merit.

Key Judicial Directives:

The Army and Union government can no longer restrict JAG posts by gender once women are permitted entry. Any such cap, whether 50% or less, is unconstitutional and contrary to the letter and spirit of Articles 14, 15, and 16.

and All future JAG appointments must be based on a common, gender-neutral merit list. If the highest performers are all women, all must be selected merit and only merit will inform selection. The Army must publish combined merit lists and full marks for transparency.

The Court ordered the induction of petitioner Arshnoor Kaur in the next training course, recognizing her exclusion as a clear instance of “indirect discrimination.” No relief was directed regarding Astha Tyagi, who had chosen to join the Indian Navy meanwhile.

This judgment is a resounding endorsement of true gender neutrality not just in letter, but in spirit. The Court trenchantly observed, “No nation can be secure when half of its population (i.e., its women force) is held back.”

It called out policies dressed up as “neutral” that, in effect, sideline women regardless of merit and abjured hollow claims of “field or operational” barriers, noting the proven excellence of women officers in combat-support and operational assignments.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional for specific guidance on their individual circumstances.