Background & Context
- JAG Branch in the Army:
- The Judge Advocate General’s Department is the Army’s legal arm.
- Officers here deal with military law, court-martials, legal advice to commanders, and legal awareness in units.
- Despite being a legal service, it is considered a “combatant” branch because JAG officers are commissioned Army officers and can be mobilized in wartime.
- Pre-judgment Status:
- The Army had a policy restricting women officers in JAG and reserving a higher number of posts for men.
- Justification given: JAG officers are “combatant personnel” and a reserve for mobilisation; women were allegedly unsuitable for such mobilisation.
- Petitioners’ Stand:
- Represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
- Challenged the gender-based restriction as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Relevance : GS 2(Gender Equality)
Supreme Court’s Key Findings
- Policy Unconstitutional:
- Discrimination based on gender in appointments violates Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 16 (Equality in public employment) of the Constitution.
- Mere “combatant” label does not justify excluding women without evidence-based reasoning.
- No Legal Basis for Exclusion:
- No legislation prevents women from serving in combat-support roles like JAG.
- Army’s reasoning that women are not deployed in counter-terror or counter-insurgency roles was unsupported in law.
- Comparative Services Reference:
- Indian Air Force: Women serve as fighter pilots, helicopter pilots, and in airborne missions.
- Indian Navy: Women deployed on warships and in combat-support roles.
- Army itself has women in operationally risky roles (e.g., elite airborne and parachute units in emergencies).
- Judicial Philosophy:
- Court emphasized it is not imposing its military views, but enforcing constitutional mandates.
- Quote: “No nation can be secure when half of its population is held back.”
Directives Issued
- Publish a common merit list for all JAG candidates (men and women).
- Make marks public to ensure transparency.
- End gender-based reservation of posts in JAG.
Constitutional & Legal Principles
- Article 14: Prohibits arbitrary classification; classification must be reasonable and have a rational nexus to the objective.
- Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.
- Article 16(1) & (2): Equal opportunity in public employment; exceptions only for specific service-related conditions backed by law.
- Supreme Court Precedents:
- Babita Puniya vs Union of India (2020): Permanent commission for women in Army’s non-combat roles.
- Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (1982): Gender cannot be a bar unless justified by compelling necessity.
Strategic & Operational Implications
- Talent Pool Expansion: More qualified officers (irrespective of gender) can serve in legal branches, strengthening military justice.
- Operational Flexibility: Women officers already handle high-risk operations; expanding their legal combat-support presence is operationally feasible.
- Cultural Shift: Encourages institutional acceptance of gender-neutral postings, aligning military norms with global practices.
Broader Social & Policy Dimensions
- Gender Equality in Forces:
- Women’s participation in combat and combat-support roles reflects societal progress.
- Challenges outdated stereotypes about women’s operational capability.
- International Comparison:
- Many advanced militaries (US, UK, Israel, France) allow women in combat-support and combat roles.
- Civil-Military Relations:
- Court has reinforced that military policies must conform to constitutional principles unless backed by explicit legislative mandate.
