While accepting the government and the Army’s submission that the ‘selection parameters for men and women were essentially identical’, the Court found evidence of indirect discrimination. More meritorious women were losing seats to less meritorious men due to the vacancy split.
On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered the landmark judgment in the ‘Arshnoor Kaur & ANR v. The Union of India & ORS’ case. The judgment advocates for fairness, merit, and gender equality in public employment and sets the stage for the State to intervene to correct the historical under-representation.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Dipankar Datta, struck down the Army’s 2023 recruitment policy for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, calling it indirectly discriminatory against women candidates.
The Dispute
For the 31st Short Service Commission JAG course, the Army created separate merit lists for men and women, reserving vacancies in a 6:3 ratio. The problem? Several high-scoring women were denied selection, while lower-ranking men made up to the cut-off, simply because of the artificial vacancy split.
The women argued that this violated Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, prohibit discrimination, and ensure equal opportunity in public employment.
The key concerns before the court were:
- Whether the government (executive) can further limit the extent of induction of the eligible women by notification under Section 12 of the Army Act 1950.
- Whether the provision of separate merit lists for men and women, along with fixed seats for each, results in unfair discrimination under the Constitution.
- What kind of corrective measures should the Court suggest, if it finds such discrimination?
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that the government(executive) cannot put extra limits on the number of women in the Army through policies. Such limits can only come from a law made by Parliament. This is because Article 33 of the Constitution gives only Parliament the power to restrict the rights of armed forces personnel. Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, says that women cannot join the Army unless the government issues a notification opening specific branches to them. The Court clarified that once a branch is opened, the government cannot fix separate numerical caps through policy. Any restriction must be clearly written in the Act itself.
While accepting the government and the Army’s submission that the ‘selection parameters for men and women were essentially identical’ and the process of recruitment was gender-neutral, the Court found evidence of indirect discrimination. More meritorious women were losing seats to less meritorious men due to the vacancy split.
Further, the ruling drew a clear differentiation between ‘gender-neutral’ and ‘gender-equal’ recruitment. The 2023 policy of recruitment described itself as ‘gender-neutral’, but in practice applied a numerical ‘50:50 distribution’ scheme. From a constitutional perspective, the recruitment must be merit-based. However, to ‘correct the past’ and support the under-represented, the Court suggested that the State should allocate not less than 50% of seats to women as a remedial measure, without denying seats to meritorious women.
The Court ordered that Arshnoor Kaur be inducted into the next available JAG training course, as her SSB marks were higher than those of the selected male candidate, and further rejected the equitable relief to the selected male candidate. It further directed the Union Government to publish a single, common merit list of all candidates and to conduct recruitment strictly based on merit (gender-neutral), while simultaneously working towards the objective of increasing women recruits to 50%.
As of now, there are no specific amendments to the Army recruitment. However, the Supreme Court, in its broader interpretation of the recruitment process, has emphasised the strict adherence to recruitment timelines and institutionalisation of a designated authority to look after the issues in the recruitment process.
While there is no official data on litigation timelines specific to the Army, the India Justice Report 2025 notes that cases in High Courts often take 5–10 years to resolve. In the Group-D services recruitment case of Tripura, for instance, the Supreme Court directed that the hiring process be completed within months.
Building on these concerns, the ruling highlights several systemic gaps that require coordinated work at the macro, meso, and micro levels of institutions:
I. Clarification in the recruitment: A clear notification on the induction capacity for both existing and new branches should be clarified under the broader jurisdiction of the Army Act or related statutes of recruitment. This will ensure that the recruitment process is done on the constitutional lines with fairness, without displacing the meritorious candidates.
II. Transparency through publication: Publishing of the consolidated merit list, with scores of selected candidates, will ensure procedural transparency, enhance credibility of the recruitment process, and increase public confidence.
III. Data-driven remedial measures: Guidelines should mandate time-bound, data-oriented corrective steps to safeguard the interests of affected parties. An online dashboard could track pending and completed cases related to Army recruitment.
In essence, the ruling is more than a correction of one flawed policy. It is a reminder that true equality demands both fairness in process and courage in reform. By opening the gates wider for women on the strength of their merit, the Court has not only upheld constitutional values but also charted a path for a more inclusive and democratic Armed Forces.
Anshal Telang is an intern under TRIP
Mentored and Edited by Sneha Yadav
References
Arshnoor Kaur & ANR. v. The Union of India & ORS., Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition © No. 772 of 2023.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/29505/29505_2023_16_1501_63165_Judgement_11-Aug-2025.pdf
Chaturvedi, S. (2025). Normally Misunderstood & Thought To Be Synonyms: Supreme Court Explains Difference Between ‘Gender Neutrality’ & ‘Gender Equality’. VERDICTUM.
India Justice Report. (2025). India Justice Report: Ranking States on the Capacity of Police, Judiciary, Prisons, and Legal Aid.
https://indiajusticereport.org/files/IJR%204_Full%20Report_English_Low.pdf
Mohanty, S. (2025). SC directs Centre to commission woman petitioner into Army as JAG, asks to publish combined merit list. The Indian Express.
PTI. (2025). SC strikes down gender-based cap in Army’s JAG recruitment orders common merit list. THE WEEK.
https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2025/08/11/lgd39-sc-army-recruitment.html
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gendered Reservation Policy in Army JAG Posts. Bharat Law
SC Directs Tripura Govt To Complete 2017 Recruitment Within Two Months. News Now.
Talwar, S. (2025). Supreme Court say 50 percent limit on women’s recruitment in Army JAG branch violates right to equality. Law Beat