Supreme Court Orders Common Merit List for JAG Recruitment, Holds Gender-Based Vacancy Caps Unconstitutional

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard a writ petition challenging the Indian Army’s 18 January 2023 notification for induction into the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Short Service Commission (SSC) for law graduates. The petitioners contested the practice of separate merit lists and a scheme that provided only three vacancies for women against six for men, arguing the policy violated Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and exceeded the limits of Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950.

The Court allowed the challenge in part and set aside the discriminatory effect of the impugned selection practice. The Court held that once Parliament and the Central Government had permitted women to be inducted into a particular corps by notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, the executive could not, by administrative policy or “extent of induction,” impose a separate numerical ceiling or reserve extra vacancies for men. The judgment directed the Army and Union of India to publish a combined merit list and marks of all JAG candidates and to induct the petitioner Ms. Arshnoor Kaur in the next available training course. The Court rejected the contention that separate SSB testing justified separate, sex-based vacancy allocation where the selection parameters were identical.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The judgment also emphasised that administrative circulars of 2011 and 2012 were “untenable in law” to the extent they sought to limit induction, and quoted government material noting the professed policy that “Employment in Indian Armed Forces is gender neutral.” The Court concluded with a pointed observation reproduced from the judgment: “no nation can be secure, when half of its population is held back.”

Background The petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 772 of 2023) arose after the Army published separate men’s and women’s merit lists for the SSC (JAG-31) Course (October 2023) and allocated six vacancies to men and three to women. Petitioners Arshnoor Kaur and another woman candidate, both ranking within the top women’s list, sought a declaration that the notification violated equality provisions and sought a common, gender‑neutral merit list. The Ministry defended the policy on operational and deployment grounds, relying on Article 33 and Section 12 of the Army Act and on Service orders of 2011 and 2012; it also pointed to a 2023 Study Group report recommending a 50:50 intake trajectory for JAG from 2024. The record disclosed the SSB marks for all candidates, showing many women outscored male selectees. During the proceedings one petitioner had joined the Navy and did not seek relief; another petitioner (Ms. Arshnoor Kaur) obtained interim relief and the Court directed her induction into the next training course. The Court found that separate SSB boards did not produce materially different testing parameters and that the formal 50:50 practice produced an adverse effect on meritorious women — amounting to indirect discrimination. The writ petition was disposed with directions to the Union and Army to prepare and publish a common merit list and marks, to apply a constitutionally valid interpretation of the 2023 recruitment policy (merit-first with compensationary steps for historic exclusion), and to induct the petitioner named in the order.

Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 772 of 2023 Case Title: Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.3); Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General (for Union of India and Army)