Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Consider Five Women for Army SSC posts Reserved For Men

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to consider appointing five women candidates as Short Service Commissioned (SSC) Officers (Non-Technical) in the Indian Army against posts that were reserved for men but remain unfilled.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was hearing a petition filed by five aspirants who sought directions for their appointment in light of 62 vacancies originally earmarked for men. The petitioners argued that once women are permitted entry into certain branches of the Army, the government cannot restrict their induction by fixing arbitrary caps.

The controversy arose out of the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) notification of August 4, 2021, inviting applications through the Combined Defence Services Examination (II) 2021. The notification announced 169 vacancies for men and 16 for women in the SSC (Non-Technical) category. While all 16 posts for women were filled, only 107 men were appointed, leaving 62 positions vacant. The petitioners claimed a right to be considered for these unfilled seats.

In its 18-page judgment authored by Justice Hari Shankar, the Bench directed that the petitioners be considered against the 62 vacancies left unfulfilled by men. “There could have been no limitation on the number of women who could be entitled to recruitment against the corps and services identified in para 45 of Arshnoor Kaur,” the court observed. “Needless to say, the petitioners would not be entitled for induction into any other corps or services,” the court added.

Citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Arshnoor Kaur v Union of India, the Bench reiterated that the apex court had elaborated in detail on the principle of gender neutrality as a constitutional imperative.

Emphasising that “elimination of the anachronistically artificial chromosomal distinction between women and men is a cherished constitutional goal,” the court said: “It is the constitutional duty of every executive and judicial authority in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court. This would include ensuring that the law declared by the Supreme Court, especially where it is aimed at social emancipation and in which public interest is deeply ingrained, is implemented to optimum effect.”

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma argued that restricting the number of women was a matter of policy, shaped by operational preparedness and the risks of deployment in insurgency situations. Such questions, he submitted, are best left to the armed forces and the executive, not courts.

The Bench, however, declined to accept this contention. It pointed out that similar arguments had already been addressed and rejected by the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur. “The Supreme Court, as the supreme guardian of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, also functions as the sentinel on the qui vive. Among the most pristine of these fundamental rights is the right to gender neutrality."

Court added, "In the discharge of its functions as the sentinel on the qui vive, the Supreme Court is unshackled by considerations of the limits of the lis before it. Where the Supreme Court lays down the law on matters of policy gravely impacting fundamental rights, it would be folly, on the part of any Court, to restrict it to the lis with which the Supreme Court was concerned."

Allowing the plea, the court clarified that the petitioners’ right to be considered would depend on their fulfilling age, medical, and other pre-training requirements.

“Needless to say, should the petitioners qualify and be selected, they would be entitled to all other consequential reliefs as available in law,” the court concluded.

For Petitioners: Mr. Indra Sen Singh, Mr. Nasir Mohd and Ms. Kaberi Sharma, Advs.

For Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC, Mr Amit Gupta, SPC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Ankush Kapoor and Mr. Vishwadeep, Advs. with Major Anish Muralidhar and Capt Carolin Johnson

Case Title: SHRUTI VYAS & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH & ANR

Judgment date:16 September 2025

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla