If women can fly Rafale in IAF, why fewer of them in Army legal branch? Supreme Court asks Centre
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.
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.
"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 Ms. 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.
Ms. 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.
Ms. 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.
Ms. 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
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When judges face impeachment: V Ramaswami to Soumitra Sen, what happened in each of the 5 cases
The Centre is likely to bring in an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma in the Monsoon Session of Parliament next month. An impeachment motion against a judge is a rare occurrence. There have been attempts to move the motion against judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts only five times since Independence, with Parliament debating only two of those motions, while the rest either failed to get the support of the required number of MPs or were rejected. Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which deals with this issue, says, 'A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.' Here is a look at the five instances when motions were brought to impeach judges. In 1993, Justice V Ramaswami was the first sitting judge of the Supreme Court to face impeachment for alleged financial misconduct during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Lok Sabha debate on impeaching him took place on May 10 and 11 that year. CPI(M)'s Bolpur MP Somnath Chatterjee moved the motion in the Lok Sabha. 'This is a constitutional obligation, not a political witch-hunt. We are seeking to maintain the dignity of the highest judiciary. Let it be known to the nation and to the world that this House, this Parliament, can rise to its responsibilities under the Constitution,' he said. Acknowledging that MPs 'were not judges', Chatterjee said the House was called upon to act 'with objectivity and seriousness of judges'. 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions. My appeal once again to all my fellow Members is that the time has come when we must stand up for certain values and norms,' he said. Lauding Ramaswami's counsel Kapil Sibal, who defended the Supreme Court judge in Parliament, Chatterjee said he hoped Ramaswami would resign. 'Yesterday, his counsel advocated very strongly that this House should not vote on this particular motion. His plea was: 'Please do not vote on this motion.' After the debate was over, I walked over to him and said: 'You made an excellent suggestion. Why do you not take it one step further and persuade your client to resign?'' Chatterjee concluded, saying, 'If we fail today, we will be failing not only the Constitution but also the hopes of the people of this country who place trust in our institutions.' Supporting the motion, BJP's Chittorgarh MP Jaswant Singh said it was the first exercise where 'legislators were called upon to don a judicial role'. 'What we do or fail to do today will become archival material, to be referred to by successive generations of legislators. The fate of this motion is directly linked with the moral health of the nation … The motion of impeachment is a safeguard of the State. It restrains judicial tyranny without overawing the authority of the courts. I asked myself: Is this, on the findings of the Committee, sufficient to conclude misbehaviour? My answer is yes. Is it proven? Yes. Does it warrant removal? Yes. To reject this motion would be to condone misbehaviour in the judiciary; it would taint and enfeeble the nation,' he said. The Janata Dal MP from Muzaffarpur, George Fernandes, said he hoped that the debate would be the' beginning of a cleansing process, in which we must uphold the rule of law, uphold the basic norms and values — especially if we want to combat the growing violence and corruption in this country'. The Congress opposed the motion, with its MP Mani Shankar Aiyar saying the 108 members who moved the motion 'were not a cross-section of the House'. 'They were drawn from parties that numerically did not constitute a majority … That is perfectly legal, maybe even moral, but this must be borne in mind … At a time when even my eleven-year-old daughter knew that the Ninth Lok Sabha was going to end, they decided to bring this issue forward as their electoral platform,' he said. Claiming that the House was not even being given 16 hours to consider the matter, Aiyar said, 'Whether we pass this motion or reject it, we are doing great damage to our nation. We are paying for the sins of the dying days of the Ninth Lok Sabha.' Another Congress MP, Debi Prasad Pal, questioned the legitimacy and transparency of the committee process. The motion fell through after most Congress MPs abstained and it failed to get a two-thirds majority. Of the 401 MPs in the House, 205 abstained while 196 voted in favour of the motion. The impeachment proceedings against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court took place in the Rajya Sabha. Sen was accused of misappropriating funds in his role as a court-appointed receiver and of misleading the court even after his elevation to the Bench. The Rajya Sabha took up the motion on August 17–18, 2011, following the findings of an inquiry committee headed by Justice B Sudershan Reddy, Justice Mukul Mudgal, and jurist Fali Nariman. Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) moved the motion, saying it was 'not one questioning the integrity of the judiciary but against one judge who has been found to have indulged in conduct that constitutes the definition of misbehaviour'. 'It is a call of duty to correct any aberration that may lead to the undermining of this faith (in the judiciary). Let us convey not only to the people of India but to the people of the world that the Indian Parliament is a sacred temple — the perpetual residence of inviolable justice,' he said. Then Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, spoke in support of the motion. 'The cheques can't lie; individuals can. This is a fit case for removal, and we must so make a recommendation to the President,' he said. Saying he had come to seek justice on 'not only questions of law but also on questions of facts', Justice Sen defended himself in the House. 'The concept of presumption of innocence has now been reversed into a presumption of guilt … Even if you hold me guilty and remove me, I will still shout from the rooftops that I did not misappropriate the money … This entire matter is being driven by assumptions and political will, not law or facts,' he said. In reply, Jaitley said, 'This misappropriation will hang like an albatross around your neck even when you shout from rooftops that you're innocent … Can we afford to have a judge whose conduct smacks of this kind of proven misconduct?' The Upper House passed the motion and Justice Sen became the first sitting judge to have an impeachment motion against him passed by a House of Parliament. He subsequently resigned and then Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid told the Lok Sabha on September 5, 2011, that further discussion on the matter was not required and the Lower House did not get to discuss or vote on the matter. More than 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion seeking the removal of Justice S K Gangele of the Madhya Pradesh High Court over charges of sexual harassment by a former district and sessions judge in Gwalior. The motion was dropped after an inquiry committee did not find enough material against the judge. Over 50 Rajya Sabha MPs signed a motion to impeach Justice Reddy of the High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over charges of physically assaulting a judge of a lower court. However, the motion was dropped after nine MPs withdrew, and it fell short of the minimum 50 MPs required to introduce the motion. Opposition parties in the Rajya Sabha, including the Congress, (then undivided) NCP, SP, BSP, and CPI(M), submitted the motion to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in April 2018, alleging 'misbehaviour' and 'incapacity'. On April 23 that year, the then Rajya Sabha chairman, M Venkaiah Naidu, rejected the motion saying that the charges pertained to internal court administration and did not amount to constitutional 'misbehaviour'.
India.com
33 minutes ago
- India.com
IAF Announces Major Military Exercise Near India-Pak Border, NOTAM Issued
New Delhi: India has issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) for a major Indian Air Force (IAF) exercise scheduled to take place near the southern sector of the India-Pakistan International Border in Rajasthan from Saturday, June 7, to Sunday, June 8. The exercise is part of the IAF's regular operational preparedness and will be conducted in airspace near the border. According to the NOTAM, the aerial drill will commence at 3:30 p.m. on June 7 and conclude at 9:30 p.m. the following day. During this period, airspace over the designated region will be restricted to ensure the safe and seamless execution of air operations. An official from the Indian Air Force confirmed that the combat exercises will feature a range of advanced air assets, including frontline fighter jets such as Rafale, Mirage 2000, and Sukhoi-30, in addition to surveillance platforms and other support systems. Although the Ministry of Defence has not officially connected the exercise to ongoing geopolitical tensions, the timing and location of the drill carry notable implications. This sector has become a focal point amid rising tensions following a deadly cross-border terror attack in Pahalgam. That incident triggered reciprocal airspace restrictions by both India and Pakistan, significantly straining bilateral relations. India recently closed its airspace to all Pakistani-registered and military aircraft from April 30 to May 23. This action followed Pakistan's earlier decision to bar Indian flights from its airspace, marking an escalation in diplomatic and military frictions. The situation remains tense along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, where frequent ceasefire violations by Pakistani troops have prompted firm retaliatory responses from Indian forces. This comes against the backdrop of India's 'Operation Sindoor', which was launched on May 7, in retaliation to the terror attack in Pahalgam, where terrorists killed 26 innocent people.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Section 4 crisis to be resolved soon; will appeal to Centre, SC: Khandre
Bengaluru: Under Section 4 of the Forest Act 1963, the government has the option to abandon the land allocated before the notification, and a special proposal will be submitted to the Centre and the Supreme Court to provide justice to the people who have built houses and are cultivating for 30-40 years after the notification, said Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwara B Khandre. Presiding over a meeting held with Chikkamagaluru district MLAs and forest and revenue department officials at Vikas Soudha, he said that a request will be submit-ted to the Supreme Court and the Centre to give an alternative to the designated forest with residential areas, patta land, etc. and the land allocated after the Section 4 notification, and to abandon this land from the forest area. In many cases, even though Section 4 has been notified for 60-70 years, Section 17 is still not in effect. After the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, it has become difficult to abandon such forests. Therefore, it is imperative to appeal to the Center and the Supreme Court. Chikkamagaluru district is in the Western Ghats and there is a rich forest area here. There is 300-400 acres of land in a single survey number, and there is confusion because there is no joint survey. In this context, he told the officials to conduct a joint survey of forest and revenue land and try to resolve the problem quickly. The survey number in the certificate submitted to the Supreme Court as a deemed forest also includes houses, government schools, government buildings, and land plots. Now that we have finally got the opportunity to submit a report to the Supreme Court, we can submit a petition to the Supreme Court by conducting a proper survey and determining the amount of land eligible for abandonment, and by providing revenue land elsewhere as an alternative and cultivating a forest there, Ishwar Khandre Forest Minister also instructed that the deemed forest certificate, which was al-ready submitted to the Supreme Court in 2022, be uploaded on the department's of-ficial website to make it available to the public. Responding to the request of the MLAs that the current 10 km buffer zone around the bear sanctuary in Arsikere limits of Hassan district is also causing hardship to the farmers of Chikkamagaluru in the border area, the Minister said that a proposal has been submitted to reduce this limit to 1 km. He assured that this problem will be resolved soon. Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwar B Khandre, who convened a meeting to discuss the problems being faced by the common people due to Section 4 of the Forest Act and the affected forest notification in Chikkamagaluru district, was thanked by MLAs Rajegowda, Thammanna, Nayana Motamma, Srinivas and Anand who participated in the meeting. Forest Force Chief Meenakshi Negi, Chief Wildlife Warden Subhash Malkade, PCCF BP Ravi, Biswajit Mishra, Chikkamagaluru District Commissioner Meena Na-garaj and others participated in the meeting.
