If a lady can fly Rafale, why fewer women allowed in Judge Advocate General posts, Supreme Court asks Army

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has wondered if it is permissible in the Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale, what is so very difficult for the Army to appoint them to the posts of Judge Advocate General in Army.

A bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the Centre for earmarking fewer posts for women, despite claiming the posts to be gender neutral.

The court reserved its judgment on a writ petition filed by two women seeking appointment to the post of JAG (Indian Army) Entry Scheme, challenging the disproportionate vacancies for men and women.

The petitioners Arshnoor Kaur and another claimed that though they secured ranks of 4th and 5th positions, respectively, and were higher in merit than male candidates, still, they could not be selected due to the fewer vacancies earmarked for women.

An Army JAG officer is a legally qualified officer within the Indian Army, serving as a legal advisor and upholding military law. The JAG handled legal matters, including disciplinary actions and litigation, and ensured the enforcement of military law. JAG officers also provided legal counsel and assistance to the army in various matters, including human rights and the rule of law.

The court granted interim relief to Kaur, and directed the Union government and the Army to induct her in the next available training course for appointment as a JAG officer.

During the hearings, the court was unimpressed with the arguments submitted by the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, that the JAG posts are gender neutral and that 50:50 is the ratio of selection from 2023 onwards.

She also defended that the gender-specific vacancies are there in all branches of the Army, and it is based on manpower assessment and requirement.

"Medical and dental branches are exclusively for women, and men are not permitted. In fact, there are writ petitions before the Delhi High Court that men should be allowed in these branches," she submitted.

The bench, however, asked how this could be termed as gender-neutral when women candidates with higher merit are not qualified because vacancies are still gender bifuracted.

"Gender neutrality does not mean 50:50 per cent. Gender neutrality means it does not matter from which gender you come," the court observed.

The bench also objected to the Union government's submission that if women JAG officers are appointed as combatants on international borders, they may face a risk of being taken as prisoners of war.