- SC questioned the division of Vacancies into Male and Female Categories
- The Apex Court criticized the Deployment of Female JAG officers in combat zones
The Supreme Court has criticized the gender disparity in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Army recruitments, questioning the division of vacancies into male and female categories. The court also questioned the restricted deployment of female JAG officers in combat zones, arguing that exclusion based on gender contradicts equality principles.
The bench asks, "Once women are allowed in JAG, why is discrimination being made by being posted in A or B area, and why can't they be deployed everywhere?"
The SC pointed out the inequality in the vacancy distribution: Six posts are reserved for men, and only three are reserved for women.
The government, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, defended its policy against women being deployed in war zones, arguing it was a policy decision, not discrimination. The ASG highlighted the crucial role of female JAG members in the Balakot strike, emphasizing the need for a male-dominated fighting force despite changing warfare landscapes.
The court remarked, "How can 50 percent of the population be asked not to enter one area in today's time?" It added, "You cannot exclude them and then say only the men will fight."
The court mentions, "In a country of such magnitude with a large population and so many hostile countries around, the entire nation needs to be mobilized, especially in JAG, where women are performing really well."
The bench clarified that merit concerns should not dictate admission, but that lower merit individuals should not be excluded solely due to gender, stating that such a philosophy is unnecessary.
