New Delhi, The Center has defended its policy of gender vacancies in the Department of Judge Advocate General (JAG), stating that since the personnel posted on this wing can be assigned fighter roles during the war time, male and female officers are recruited based on functional and operational requirements.
This, it has been claimed, is required to maintain the operations of the army. As a result, the JAG branch cannot be considered as a separate entity, requiring a separate process, such as an integrated qualification list, it argued.
JAG is one of some branches of the army where women officers can be permanently absorbed after completing their Small Services Commission (SSC).
Show full article
The Center opposed the petitions filed by two women and presented its stand before the Supreme Court, who challenged the notification of January 2023.
The notification restricted three women and reserved six vacancies in the world for men. Arguing that this proportionless reverse reservation in favor of men was discriminatory, the petitioners claimed that it denied them a proper opportunity for selection.
According to the petitioners, he secured the fourth and fifth places in the merit list, which is higher than that of his male counterparts. However, due to low vacancies allotted to women, they were not selected, while male candidates were appointed.
The Center also stated that, unlike their male counterparts, on the grant of female officers, commission, the pedestrian battalion or Combat Support Unit is not associated with regimenous duties. In contrast, male officers are first posted at an 18 -month attachment with infantry units before being deployed with awake.
In their petitions, women argued that the authorities posted at the JAG department’s function as legal advisors and are non-girls, thus make gender-based recruitment unfair.
However, the government called this approach “clear misconception”.
It told the apex court on Friday that the army included various fighter weapons, fighter support weapons, and services-all of which are fighter forces-and no non-fighting uniform elements.
Referring to the international law, the government said that under the Geneva Convention, protection during armed conflict is extended only to medical personnel and clergy (religious teachers) and not legal authorities. Therefore, it argued, assessing the employment of JAG authorities would be factually wrong based on the duties of Mayur.
It further stated that, since the army has not posted female officers in frontline fighter posts, where there is a possibility of contact with the enemy, gender vacancies become a military requirement. The duties of officers during the war can vary greatly, and thus, unlike ordinary civil services, gender equality cannot override operating demands.
The bench of the Supreme Court, which included Justices Dipankar Dutta and Manmohan, appeared unrelated by the justification of the Center.
During the hearing, the judges questioned why the army cannot expand the roles of war for women officers, especially when the Indian Air Force allowed a woman pilot to fly a Rafale aircraft – similar risks are faced, including the possibility of taking as prisoners of war.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti represented the Center, denied any discrimination in the recruitment process of Jag. He clarified that two separate but uniform service selection boards (SSBs) were organized to select the appropriate male and female candidates.
He also presented that the army has developed progressively, keeping in mind the induction and employment of female officers, including the jag, in mind. Male-to-women recruitment ratio, which was 70:30 in 2012, is now 50:50. Therefore, the Center argued that it would be wrong to claim that the awakening recruitment policy is either discriminatory or unconstitutional. Otherwise, to suggest, the Center said, there will be funds to encroach on the executive domain, which is authorized only to determine the intake of male and female officers in the Indian Army.
By burning its decision on the validity of gender vacancies, the bench directed the Central Government and the Army to include the petitioner with rank 4 in the next available training course for the awakening officers. The second petitioner, it was informed, joined the Indian Navy while the case was pending.
The court asked her to clarify whether she still wants to join the Army’s Jag Department.
The Center further stated that there is a “frequent shortage” of officers in the regular army, especially within the “state -of -the -art infantry”. In emergency situations, personnel of other departments including JAG are mobilized to overcome this deficiency.
“In the Indian Army, the main feeling in the Indian Army, the Center said, the gender integration should be a developed process, directed by operating requirements rather than the gender itself.” “This means that while the aspirations of women should be adjusted, they must mainly align with the structural and functional needs of the organization. The allocation of vacancies is thus not based on any gender distinction, but on the necessary balance of the Indian Army.”
(Edited by Ridififa Kabir)
Also read: Justice Gawai High Court pushed to diversity with qualifications as CJI to continue the interview