The Supreme Court of India has struck down a gender-based quota in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, ruling that reserving six vacancies for men and only three for women is unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, emphasized that once women are legally permitted to join the JAG branch, no executive policy or administrative directive can lawfully limit their recruitment.
In addressing the petition filed by two female candidates, the Court found that despite one petitioner securing a higher rank than a male candidate, the gender-based cap prevented her selection—constituting indirect discrimination.
The judgment underscored that the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution is violated by such policies.
Going forward, the Supreme Court directed the Union of India to conduct JAG recruitment on the basis of merit alone and to publish a unified merit list for all candidates—regardless of gender. 1
The Court made it clear that even if all top candidates happen to be women, they must be selected without restriction