The Supreme Court on Monday struck down the Centre’s policy that put a limit on how many women could join the Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said that such limits violate the right to equality and that selection should onlybe based on merit, not gender.

The case came to court after two women candidates, who ranked fifth and sixth in the merit list, challenged the Army’s rule of reserving six seats for men and three seats for women in the JAG Entry Scheme. They argued that this rule was unfair because even though they had higher merit than some male candidates, they were not selected due to the gender-based seat split.

The court agreed with their argument and said, “The executive cannot reserve vacancies for men. The seats of six for men and three for women are arbitrary and cannot be justified. True gender neutrality means the Union should select the most meritorious candidates, regardless of gender.”

Justice Manmohan directed the Centre to induct one of the two petitioners into the JAG department. The second petitioner, however, was not given relief by the court. The bench also ordered the Union to conduct future recruitment in a way that creates a combined merit list for both men and women. “No nation can be secure if such policies are followed,” the court added.

During earlier hearings, the bench had questioned why there should be a fixed male-female ratio in recruitment. “If women can fly Rafales, why place limits on them in the Army’s legal branch?” the court had asked. The Centre had defended the current system by saying it was necessary due to operational needs and wartime arrangements. However, the court rejected this reasoning, making it clear that in a fair system, talent and merit should decide selection, not gender quotas.