The supreme court has questioned why it is so difficult for the army to appoint women to positions as Judge Advocate Generals and if it is acceptable for women to fly Rafales in the air Force. Despite asserting that the positions are gender neutral, a bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the Center for designating fewer positions for women.
Two women filed a writ suit challenging the unequal number of slots for men and women in the JAG (Indian Army) Entry Scheme, and the court postponed making a decision.
The petitioners, Arshnoor Kaur and another, asserted that despite their superior merits and rankings of fourth and fifth, respectively, they could not be chosen since fewer spots were reserved for women.
A legally qualified officer in the indian army who serves as a legal counselor and enforces military law is known as an army JAG officer. The JAG oversaw legal issues, including lawsuits and disciplinary actions, and ensured that military law was upheld. In addition, JAG officers offered the army legal advice and support on a range of topics, such as human rights and the rule of law.
In addition to granting Kaur temporary respite, the court ordered the army and the Union government to enroll her in the upcoming JAG officer training program.
The arguments made by Additional Solicitor General aishwarya Bhati, who represented the Center during the proceedings, that the JAG positions are gender neutral and that the selection ratio will be 50:50 starting in 2023 left the court unmoved.
She also argued that all army branches have gender-specific openings, which are determined by requirements and manpower assessments.
"Men are not allowed in the medical or dental fields; only women are allowed. Men should be permitted in these branches, according to writ petitions that are currently pending before the delhi High court," she said.
However, because vacancies are still gender-biased, the bench questioned how this could be considered gender-neutral when women candidates with greater merit are not eligible.
"50:50 does not equate to gender neutrality. It doesn't matter what gender you're from, according to gender neutrality, the court noted.
The Union government's argument that women JAG officers run the risk of being captured as POWs if they are assigned as combatants on foreign soil was also rejected by the court.
Two women filed a writ suit challenging the unequal number of slots for men and women in the JAG (Indian Army) Entry Scheme, and the court postponed making a decision.
The petitioners, Arshnoor Kaur and another, asserted that despite their superior merits and rankings of fourth and fifth, respectively, they could not be chosen since fewer spots were reserved for women.
A legally qualified officer in the indian army who serves as a legal counselor and enforces military law is known as an army JAG officer. The JAG oversaw legal issues, including lawsuits and disciplinary actions, and ensured that military law was upheld. In addition, JAG officers offered the army legal advice and support on a range of topics, such as human rights and the rule of law.
In addition to granting Kaur temporary respite, the court ordered the army and the Union government to enroll her in the upcoming JAG officer training program.
The arguments made by Additional Solicitor General aishwarya Bhati, who represented the Center during the proceedings, that the JAG positions are gender neutral and that the selection ratio will be 50:50 starting in 2023 left the court unmoved.
She also argued that all army branches have gender-specific openings, which are determined by requirements and manpower assessments.
"Men are not allowed in the medical or dental fields; only women are allowed. Men should be permitted in these branches, according to writ petitions that are currently pending before the delhi High court," she said.
However, because vacancies are still gender-biased, the bench questioned how this could be considered gender-neutral when women candidates with greater merit are not eligible.
"50:50 does not equate to gender neutrality. It doesn't matter what gender you're from, according to gender neutrality, the court noted.
The Union government's argument that women JAG officers run the risk of being captured as POWs if they are assigned as combatants on foreign soil was also rejected by the court.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel