Supreme Court says 50 percent limit on women’s recruitment in Army JAG branch violates right to equality
The Supreme Court on August 11, 2025, ruled that restricting women candidates to 50 percent of vacancies in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, even when they score higher than male candidates, violates the constitutional right to equality.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that male and female JAG officers belong to the same cadre with identical service conditions. The concept of gender neutrality and the 2023 recruitment policy require that the Union of India select the most meritorious candidates regardless of gender. The JAG branch’s primary role is to provide legal advice and conduct cases for the Army.
The court ordered that to correct past exclusion of women from the branch, at least 50 percent of vacancies must be allocated to women. However, there cannot be a cap preventing women from exceeding 50 percent if they score higher than male candidates. The court also directed that a common merit list be prepared for all JAG candidates, male and female, and the marks obtained by all candidates be published.
Background of the case
The judgment came in petitions by Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi challenging the January 18, 2023 notification for the JAG Scheme 31st Short Service Commission Course for Law Graduates. The notification provided only three vacancies for women compared to six for men and maintained separate merit lists for male and female candidates.
Petitioner Astha Tyagi had secured fourth rank among women with 477 marks and Arshnoor Kaur fifth with 447 marks. They were not selected, while a male candidate with 433 marks was chosen. The petitioners argued this system was discriminatory and violated Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. They sought a single merit list for all candidates and a truly gender-neutral recruitment policy.
The Ministry of Defence had claimed in a March 17, 2023 press release that Army recruitment is gender-neutral, with no difference in testing, deployment or working conditions. The petitioners pointed out the contradiction between that claim and the separate merit lists with unequal vacancies.
Union government’s stand
The government argued that recruitment in the Army, including the extent of induction of women, is a matter of national security and within the domain of the executive. It said all JAG officers are combatants and may be deployed in combat, and that determining vacancies depends on operational needs and wartime requirements. It claimed men and women are assessed separately and therefore a common merit list is not possible.
Court’s reasoning
The Supreme Court said restrictions on fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 and 16 can only be imposed as provided in Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950. This section allows the government to specify branches in which women can serve but does not permit limiting their numbers once they are allowed in a branch. The court said the Army cannot reserve positions for men in the name of “extent of induction” once women are permitted to join a branch.
The bench rejected arguments based on physiological differences or potential combat deployment, noting that such reasoning had already been rejected in the Babita Puniya case. It said the JAG branch is part of the Combat Support Arms and Services, not Combat Arms, and women already serve in identical operational conditions as men.
The court called the 50:50 male-female intake policy “facially neutral but discriminatory in practice” because it prevents meritorious women from selection. It said indirect discrimination occurs when a neutral rule has a disproportionately negative effect on a group, here women candidates.
Impact of the ruling
From now on, the Army must prepare a single merit list for all JAG candidates and select based on merit, without capping women’s selection at 50 percent. Women will continue to have at least 50 percent of vacancies reserved to correct past exclusion, but if they perform better than men, they can be recruited in higher numbers.
The court noted that women have consistently outperformed men in judicial services exams, citing data from the Delhi Judicial Service between 2019 and 2023 where female judicial officers outnumbered male officers in recent batches. It said a merit-based selection process would improve efficiency and strengthen the JAG branch.
Key takeaway
This judgment reinforces that once women are allowed into a particular branch of the Army, they cannot be restricted by artificial quotas that reserve positions for men. It affirms the principle that gender neutrality means choosing the best candidates based on performance, not balancing numbers. It also underlines that equality under the Constitution applies fully to women in the armed forces, subject only to the specific limits Parliament has set in law.
Case title: Arshnoor Kaur & Anr vs The Union of India & Ors
Judgment date: August 11, 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan