Supreme Court asked the Center questions about the number of women in the army
Recently, the Supreme Court questioned the Central Government that if a woman in the Indian Air Force can fly a Rafale fighter aircraft, then why are the Army Judge Advocate General (JAG)? The court questioned the Center’s argument on the 50-50 selection criteria.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Manmohan reserved their verdict on the petition of two officials- Arnsur Kaur and Aastha Tyagi on 8 May, who did not choose for the JAG department due to low vacancies despite finishing 4th and 5th respectively in merit compared to their male counterparts. The authorities challenged unequal vacancies for men and women and said that they could not be selected due to being for only three women out of the total 6 posts.
The bench reserved its verdict and said, “Prima facie we are satisfied with the case established by the petitioner- 1 Arnsur Kaur.” The apex court further said, “Accordingly, we instruct the defendants to initiate necessary action for their admission to the next available training course for appointment as Judge Advocate General (JAG).”
The bench mentioned a newspaper article, stating that a female fighter pilot would fly the Rafale aircraft and in such a situation she could be made a priest. Justice Dutta asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appearing on behalf of the Center and the Army, “If a woman in the Indian Air Force is justified to fly a Rafale fighter aircraft, then why is it so difficult for the army to allow more women in the JAG?”
Second petitioner joined the Navy
The bench was informed that the second petitioner had joined the Indian Navy during the proceedings. The apex court then questioned the Center to reserve less posts for women despite claiming gender-plate posts. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the army, presented that the recruitment and employment of women officers in the army, including the JAG branch, is a progressive process keeping in mind its operational preparations.
He said, “Men and women officials from 2012 to 2023 would not only be wrong to call the policy of recruitment in the ratio of 70:30 (or now 50:50) to violate discriminatory and fundamental rights, but will also be encroached in the field of executive, which is the only competent and only authority to decide the recruitment of men and women officials in the Indian Army.”
“No matter what gender someone is”
The apex court further asked why the posts were called gender-plate when high qualified female candidates were still not eligible for the vacancies being divided on the basis of gender. Justice Manmohan commented that if 10 women are eligible for JAG on merit, will they all be appointed as an officer in the JAG branch. The judge said that penis neutrality does not mean 50:50 percent, but it means no matter which gender someone is.
Bhati defended the Center’s decision and said that gender-specific vacancies were present in all the branches of the army on the basis of manpower evaluation and requirement. He said, “The functioning of the JAG branch cannot be isolated as the only legal advisors of military commanders during peace. Bhati further stated that organizing separate SSBs for men and women is a requirement due to the nature of the tests, which requires close intensive physical contact.
“Recruitment policies increased from 2024 to 70:30 to 50:50”
Bhati described the aspect of gender integration in defense services as a developed process, which is in accordance with operating requirements and periodically subject to reviews and studies. He said, “The recruitment policies have increased from 2024 to 70:30 to 50:50. This cadre is in line with health and deployment restrictions, which is not arbitrary. Any judicial suit of equality or neutrality can weaken both the army command and control and operational preparations without taking into account operational imperatives.”
Earlier, when the apex court asked why the JAG women officers were not deployed in the war areas only due to the possibility of danger, Bhati described it as a “conscious decision” by the Government of India to prevent women officials from being deployed in the front row’s war deployment, which makes them sensitive to exposure to the enemy. (input language)
Also read-
Justice BR Gavai became the 52nd CJI of the country, the mother touched her feet, PM Modi joined hands
Luxury gift of $ 400 million meeting with Qatar, Donald Trump said- only a fool will reject
Latest india news
