Gender Neutrality in Indian Army's Judge Advocate General Branch Under Scrutiny
The Indian Supreme Court questions the gender neutrality of the Army's Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, highlighting fewer opportunities for women despite high merit. The Centre defends its policies, arguing operational preparedness. Petitioners challenge disproportionate vacancies for women, calling for equal representation in gender-neutral posts.
- Country:
- India
The Supreme Court of India has raised questions about the gender neutrality of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army. The justices noted a disparity in opportunities for women, despite claims of gender-neutral policies. Specifically, they questioned the limited vacancies available for women compared to men, despite women applicants achieving higher ranks in merit.
A petition brought by officers Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, who were not selected for the JAG despite high rankings, highlights these inconsistencies. The court is now examining the rationale behind the Army's 50-50 selection criterion, asking whether it truly reflects gender neutrality.
In response, the Centre argues that the induction process is a progressive system that aligns with operational needs. However, the court remains critical of the categorization of these posts as gender-neutral when the outcomes appear skewed. Judge Manmohan stressed that genders and merit should not limit appointments in truly gender-neutral positions.
(With inputs from agencies.)
Google News