This Supreme Court judgment holds that once the Central Government permits women’s induction into the JAG branch via notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, it cannot subsequently impose gender-based restrictions through administrative policies. Any such limitation violates Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, as it constitutes indirect discrimination and exceeds the permissible scope of exceptions under Article 33.
Facts Of The Case:
The petitioners, two female candidates who secured the 4th and 5th ranks in the women’s merit list for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch’s 31st Course, challenged a recruitment notification dated 18th January 2023. The notification prescribed six vacancies for male candidates and only three for female candidates. Despite the petitioners’ marks (477 and 447) being higher than the third-ranked male candidate (433 marks), they were denied admission. They argued that creating separate merit lists based on gender and reserving double the vacancies for men was violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The Union of India defended the policy, citing operational requirements, the combatant nature of JAG officers, and past administrative instructions that restricted the deployment of women officers in certain frontline roles. The core legal issue was whether the executive could restrict the number of female inductees through a policy after a statutory notification under the Army Act had already permitted their entry into the JAG branch.
Procedural History:
The petition was filed directly before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the recruitment notification. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court passed an interim order on 4th August 2023, directing that two vacancies be kept vacant. After hearing extensive arguments from both parties, judgment was reserved on 8th May 2025. On that date, the Court also passed a final order, prima facie satisfied with the case of petitioner no. 1, and directed the respondents to initiate her induction into the next available training course. The final judgment, disposing of the writ petition, was subsequently delivered on 11th August 2025.
READ ALSO:Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Explains How to Calculate Compensation for a Child’s Death
Court Observation:
The Court observed that once women are permitted entry into a specific branch like JAG via a statutory notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, the executive cannot subsequently impose gender-based restrictions through administrative policies. It held that creating separate merit lists and reserving a higher number of vacancies for males, despite female candidates demonstrating higher merit, constitutes indirect discrimination and violates the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16. The Court emphasized that any restriction on fundamental rights for armed forces members must be explicitly provided by parliamentary law under Article 33 and cannot be extended by executive instructions. It further noted that the professed “gender-neutral” recruitment policy was contradictory in practice, as a rigid 50:50 intake ratio, while seemingly equal, had a disproportionately adverse impact on more meritorious female candidates.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, declaring the gender-based vacancy allocation in the impugned notification unconstitutional. It directed the Union of India to induct Petitioner No. 1, Arshnoor Kaur, into the next available JAG training course, as her marks were higher than the selected male candidate. The Court mandated that henceforth, a combined merit list for all candidates must be published, and recruitment must be conducted in a genuinely gender-neutral manner, selecting the most meritorious candidates irrespective of gender. However, to compensate for historical discrimination, the Union was to ensure that at least 50% of the vacancies were allocated to women, but without imposing an upper ceiling if more meritorious women were available.
Case Details:
Case Title: Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors. Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 772 of 2023 Date of Judgement: August 11, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Manmohan and Justice Dipankar Datta
Download The Judgement Here