If women can fly Rafale in IAF, why fewer of them in Army legal branch? SC asks Centre
New Delhi: If a woman can fly
Rafale fighter jet
in the
Indian Air Force
, then why are fewer women officers in gender neutral posts of Judge Advocate General (legal) branch of the Army, the Supreme Court wondered recently and questioned the Centre's rationale on a 50-50 selection criterion. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan on May 8 reserved its verdict on the plea of two officers Arshnoor Kaur and Astha Tyagi, who despite securing 4th and 5th ranks respectively -- higher in merit than their male counterparts -- weren't selected for the JAG department due to fewer vacancies earmarked for women.
The officers challenged the disproportionate vacancies for men and women and said they could not be selected as there were only three vacancies for women out of the total six posts.
"Prima facie, we are satisfied with the case set up by the petitioner 1 Arshnoor Kaur," the bench noted while reserving its verdict.
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
She Was Everyone's Dream Girl In 90's, This Is Her Recently.
Investructor
Undo
The top court went on, "Accordingly, we direct the respondents to initiate whatever action is required for the purpose of her induction in the next available training course for appointment as Judge Advocate General (JAG)".
The bench referred to a newspaper article that a woman fighter pilot would be flying Rafale aircraft and said in such a scenario she could be taken as a prisoner of war.
Live Events
"If it's permissible in the Indian Air Force for a lady to fly a Rafale fighter jet, then why is it so difficult for the Army to allow more women in JAG?" Justice Datta asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who was appearing for the Centre and the Army.
The bench was informed that the second petitioner Tyagi joined the Indian Navy during the pendency of the proceedings.
The top court then questioned the Centre for earmarking fewer posts for women despite claiming the posts to be gender neutral.
Bhati submitted the induction and employment of women officers in the Army including JAG branch was a progressive process keeping in view its operational preparedness.
"To say the policy of intake of men and women officers from 2012 to 2023 in the ratio of 70:30 (or now being 50:50) as discriminatory and volatile of fundamental rights would not only be incorrect but will also transgress into domain of executive which is the only competent and sole authority for deciding the intake of men and women officers in Indian Army," she said.
The top court further asked why the posts were termed gender-neutral when women candidates with higher merit were not qualified owing to the vacancies still being bifurcated on gender.
Justice Manmohan observed if 10 women qualified for JAG on the basis of merit whether all of them would be appointed as officers JAG branch.
The judge said gender neutrality does not mean 50:50 per cent but it means it does not matter from which gender one is from.
Bhati defended the Centre's decision and said the gender-specific vacancies were present in all branches of the Army based on the manpower assessment and requirement.
"Functioning of JAG branch cannot be seen in isolation as mere legal advisors to military commanders during peacetime. It's an integral part of the Indian Army also having an equally important role in its operational preparedness," she said. Conducting separate SSBs for men and women are a necessity due to the nature of tests involved, which require close intensive physical interactions, Bhati added.
Bhati called the aspect of gender integration in the defence services an evolving process, calibrated to the operational needs and subject to periodic review and studies.
"The intake policies have evolved progressively from a 70:30 ratio to 50:50 from 2024. This is aligned with cadre health and deployment restrictions, which is not arbitrary. Any judicial imposition of parity or neutrality without factoring operational imperatives is likely to undermine both command and control and operational preparedness of the Army," she said.
Previously, when the top court asked why were JAG women officers not deployed in combat zones merely due to threat perception, Bhati called it a "conscious decision" on part of the government of India to restrict the employment of women officers from being posted in frontline combat deployment made them susceptible to enemy contact.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Countries we visited wanted to know Trump's role (in ceasefire) … Our sense is no one took the claims seriously': Sanjay Jha
The panel of MPs that visited Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to articulate India's stand on the Pahalgam terror attack and its aftermath returned to India late Tuesday night. JD(U) working president and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Jha who led the panel speaks about the matters raised at the meetings with the representatives of these countries and what their response was. Excerpts: What was the experience of your five-nation tour on behalf of the government? It was a great experience. Because it was a multi-party delegation, there was a very warm welcome wherever we went. People appreciated that MPs coming from the length and breadth of the country and cutting across party lines were putting forth the nation's stand on terrorism and India's right to defend itself. Representatives of some of these countries would even joke about our otherwise adversarial engagements in Parliament. But they appreciated that the delegation was carrying the message of 140 crore Indians speaking together on this issue. When we were talking about how the Indian economy had become the fourth-largest in one of the meetings, the Japanese ambassador even joked that we were talking about surpassing his country. What did you articulate on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? Pakistan was completely exposed as a propagator of cross-border terrorism. In all our meetings, we would recite Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir's statement on Kashmir before the Pahalgam attack. We underlined how an Army chief was speaking in such a radicalised manner. Then we talked about The Resistance Force (TRF) and it claiming responsibility for the (Pahalgam) attack. We showed evidence of its links with Pakistan. We flagged how Pakistan got a UN reference of the TRF withdrawn, highlighting its links with the organisation. We also spoke about Pakistan's involvement in the 26/11 attacks and all the evidence Ajmal Qasab's capture produced. We also spoke about Pakistan being on the grey list of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) between 2018 and 2022, and sought support from the country representatives to put it back on the list at the next FATF meeting. We told them not to compare India and Pakistan as the latter is a sponsor of terrorism. We told them to keep in perspective where we stand on democracy and economy and where Pakistan is, a nation run by the Army. What was the response from these countries? There was universal condemnation of terrorism wherever we went. Country representatives also expressed sympathy for India on the fact that it had suffered terror for so long. Interestingly, no one questioned our calibrated response to the Pahalgam terror attack. No one asked why we struck inside Pakistan. It conveyed their understanding that we have the right to defend ourselves. They were more interested in knowing how we conducted Operation Sindoor with such precision. How did the Muslim-majority countries, Malaysia and Indonesia, respond? In Indonesia and Malaysia, we told country representatives that Pakistan keeps bringing resolutions against India in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meetings. Since we are not part of the OIC, we told them to consider our point of view as well before entertaining such resolutions. Indonesia agreed. But Malaysia did not make any commitment. We also felt a tilt towards Pakistan in Malaysia. Did the countries you visited have any questions to ask? Their questions ranged from nuclear conflict precipitation and how the ceasefire was achieved to concerns about tourism in India in the wake of the Pahalgam attack. On the ceasefire, they wanted to know US President Donald Trump's role. We told them whenever a conflict happens anywhere in the world, countries make phone calls. It does not mean they mediate peace. We told them that during the Russia-Ukraine conflict even PM Narendra Modi spoke to leaders in both countries. It did not necessarily mean he was mediating in their affairs. Our sense from the conversations was that people had not taken Trump's claims very seriously. We gave them evidence of how the first call for a ceasefire was made by Pakistan. Indonesia and Malaysia had questions on whether tourism in India was safe. We told them India is a huge country, and people were still coming in droves, even to Pahalgam. Country representatives also had questions on the Indus Waters Treaty. We told them water and blood cannot flow together and that the preamble of the treaty mentioned 'friendship and cooperation', which was not there anymore. But, largely we argued that in the last few years India had requested to renegotiate the treaty due to climate change, demographic change, etc, but Pakistan was not responding. We also said that if Pakistan stops terrorism, the treaty can be looked at positively. There were questions on the escalation breaching the nuclear threshold. We told them our response never factored in reaching the nuclear threshold. We told them we have a no-first-use policy. But we made it clear that we would not tolerate Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. We also conveyed India's new normal of treating every terrorist attack as an act of war. How did the panel spend its free time? There was no free time. We were packed from 9 am to 9 pm. Sometimes we caught late-night flights and had morning meetings in another country. We met members of parliament, think tank representatives, ambassadors of different countries and the Indian diaspora, apart from media interactions.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Right to freedom of speech does not extend to defamatory statements against Indian Army: HC dismisses Rahul Gandhi's plea
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has recently held that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army. The high court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi who had challenged summons by a local court in connection with a case related to his alleged remarks on the Indian Army. A single judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order rejecting Rahul Gandhi's petition. 'No doubt, Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,' the high court observed in its June 2 order. It may be pointed out that additional chief judicial magistrate Alok Verma, Lucknow court, had directed Rahul Gandhi to appear before the court on March 24, 2025, in the defamation case filed against him. Gandhi had challenged the additional CJM's order passed on February 11, 2025, in the high court. Advocate Vivek Tewari had filed the complaint on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation with a rank equivalent to an Army colonel. The complaint against Rahul Gandhi alleges that during the Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022, he made a derogatory statement about a face-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers. This statement, according to the complainant, Uday Shankar Srivastava, was derogatory towards the Army and hurt the sentiments of the armed forces. 'In my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly arrived at the decision to summon the applicant to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and after satisfying himself that a prima facie case for trial of the applicant is made out,' the high court observed. 'No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant (Rahul Gandhi) are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches,' the high court observed. Additional advocate general Vinod Kumar Shahi opposed Rahul Gandhi's petition on behalf of the state government. The case will now proceed in the lower court where Rahul Gandhi will have to appear as an accused, said Shahi. The court's decision has significant implications for Rahul Gandhi, as he will have to defend himself against the allegations in the local court, added Shahi. 'Irresponsible statement of Rahul Gandhi has lowered the prestige of the Indian Army,' Shahi argued in court. .
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Ladakh: Satisfied, but statehood main issue, says Buddhist association
President of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) and former minister, Chering Dorjay Lakrook, on Wednesday largely expressed satisfaction over Centre's notifications on domicile law and job reservations for locals. However, he said that statehood and constitutional safeguards enshrined under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to the strategic Himalayan region still remain the main agenda for the people of Ladakh, including the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA). 'The Centre's notifications on domicile law prescribing 15-year residency with prospective effect and 85% reservation to locals in jobs have been accepted by us,' he said. 'However, conditions like having studied for seven years and appeared in class 10 and 12 exams were not discussed by the Union ministry of home affairs with us. We will take up these clauses with the government,' he added. The former minister, who is also a member of the LAB, admitted that the LAB and KDA had arrived at a unanimous consensus for either taking 1989 as a cut-off year or 30-year prospective residency for the domicile law. 'But the government (Centre) didn't agree upon 1989 as the cut-off year. On 30-year prospective residency, the Centre told us that it will be a time consuming exercise involving law ministry and other allied departments. Though the Centre has assured us to do it, we also realised that we could not waste further time. We have already waited for six years and the career of our youth is at stake. For the past over six years, not a single gazetted job has been given in Ladakh,' he added. The LBA chief elaborated that 15 year prospective residency will come into effect from October 31, 2019. On public service commision in Ladakh, he informed that the Centre has given them three options of UPSC directly conducting Ladakh's exams, Ladakh having its own PSC or J&K PSC conducting exams for Ladakh. 'We have conveyed that any of the three options deemed appropriate by the Centre is acceptable to us,' he said. However, the veteran leader amply made it clear that statehood and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution remain the core agenda for Ladakh people. 'Talks are yet to take place on statehood and Sixth Schedule. We also want an additional Lok Sabha constituency for the region, but that's not possible before 2026 because of a rider imposed by the Supreme Court,' he said. Ladakh as of date has only one parliamentary constituency. In 2023, the Union home ministry had formed a high-powered committee under minister of state Nityanand Rai to discuss ways to protect Ladakh's unique culture.
