Supreme Court To Hear Plea Regarding Gender Imbalance In Judge Advocate General's Recruitment

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a writ petition which raised the grievance that lesser number of vacancies are earmarked for women in the posts of Judge Advocate General(JAG).

The petitioner challenged the notification dated 18.01.2023 for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Entry Scheme 31st Course, inviting applications from Law Graduates (Men and Women). It was pointed out that while six of the vacancies are earmarked for men, only three vacancies are earmarked for women.

The petitioners, two women candidates, contended that double the number of vacancies are earmarked for male candidates which is discriminatory.  The petitioners stated that they had secured rank 4 and 5 in the common selection process. However, as larger vacancies earmarked for the male candidates, despite the better merit, they will be deprived of their entitlement for appointment as JAG officers.

When the Court asked why the petitioners are directly approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, their lawyer Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan replied that the Court has entertained other matters pertaining to gender inequality in armed forces recruitment.

A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal issued notice to the Union Government returnable within two weeks. The Court also ordered to keep aside two of the notified vacancies till the next posting date.

The petitioners were represented by Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR, Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv., Ms. Suvangana Agarwal, Adv, Mr. Rishabh Lekhi, Adv, Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv., Mr. Devesh Mohan, Adv., Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv., Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv and Ms. Anjali Goyal, Adv.

Case : Arshnoor Kaur and another vs Union of India Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 772/2023