'If women can fly rafale...': SC questions gender bias in Army's JAG recruitment

The Supreme Court of India has raised sharp concerns over the limited representation of women in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army, despite the posts being officially classified as gender neutral. The court observed that the restrictive intake policy undermines meritocracy and contradicts the broader goals of gender equality in the armed forces.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Army officers Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, who alleged that they were denied selection for JAG posts despite ranking higher in merit than selected male candidates. Out of six JAG vacancies in the recruitment cycle, only three were reserved for female candidates.

“Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by petitioner Arshnoor Kaur,” the bench stated, directing the Centre and Indian Army to consider her induction in the next available training course. The bench reserved its final verdict on the matter on May 8.

Highlighting inconsistencies in gender policy, the judges pointed to a recent report of a woman pilot flying a Rafale jet in the Indian Air Force. “If a lady can fly a Rafale and be at risk of becoming a prisoner of war, why is it so difficult to induct more women into JAG?” asked Justice Datta.

The bench took issue with the Army's fixed intake ratios, questioning why a gender-neutral branch like JAG continues to impose gender-based quotas. Justice Manmohan remarked, “If 10 women qualify on merit, should all 10 not be inducted? Gender neutrality should mean selection based on merit, not a fixed ratio.”

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre and the Army, defended the policy by stating that the 70:30 male-female recruitment ratio (recently changed to 50:50 from 2024) was based on manpower assessments and operational demands. She maintained that these matters fall within the executive domain and are not subject to judicial review.

Bhati explained that JAG officers perform a wide range of roles beyond legal advisory—including contributing to military discipline and operational readiness—and that physical interaction in SSB testing justified separate selection boards for men and women. She also said women are not deployed in combat zones to avoid exposing them to frontline risks, a conscious policy by the government.

The co-petitioner Astha Tyagi has since joined the Indian Navy, but the case continues to shape the discourse on gender equality in India’s armed forces, especially in administrative and legal branches.