'If women can fly Rafale, why Fewer Of Them Allowed in Army's JAG?': Supreme Court

Nw Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court has posed a significant question to the central government regarding the Indian Army's Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch. The court asked why women officers are being denied equal opportunities in the JAG branch despite being capable of flying Rafale fighter jets in the Indian Air Force.

Background of the Case

Two women officers, Arshnoor Kaur and Aastha Tyagi, had filed a petition challenging the disproportionate vacancies for men and women in the JAG branch. Despite having higher merit than their male counterparts, they were not selected due to fewer vacancies for women.

Supreme Court's Observation

The bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Manmohan observed that if women can fly Rafale fighter jets, there's no reason they can't be appointed as attack officers in the JAG branch. The court reserved its decision and directed the respondents to consider admitting Arshnoor Kaur in the next training course for appointment as Judge Advocate General.

Government's Argument

The Additional Solicitor General argued that the recruitment and appointment of women officers in the Army, including the JAG branch, is a progressive process considering operational preparedness. However, the court questioned the government's logic in earmarking fewer posts for women despite claiming the posts to be gender-neutral.

Court's Query

The Supreme Court asked why posts were termed gender-neutral when female candidates with higher qualifications were not eligible due to gender-based vacancies. The court questioned whether all meritorious women candidates would be appointed as JAG branch officers if they meet the eligibility criteria.