# Arshnoor Kaur & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 954
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-11
- **Bench:** Dipankar Datta, Manmohan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arshnoor-kaur-anr-v-the-union-of-india-ors-38600
- **Pages:** 67

## Headnote

(i) Whether after allowing induction of women in a particular
corp or branch under section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, can the
Respondents by way of a policy and/or administrative instruction
restrict the number of women candidates joining the said branch; (ii)
Whether the current policy of Union of India with regard to enrolment
of women in JAG course is 'gender-neutral' or 'gender-specific'.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Arts.14, 15, 16, 33 - Army Act, 1950 -
s.12 - A notification u/s.12 of the Army Act, 1950 was issued for
the JAG Scheme 31st Course, qua Short Service Commission
('SSC') Course for Law Graduates - The said notification allows
induction of women in JAG, and notified three vacancies
for female candidates as against six vacancies for male
candidates - The notification, further, provides for separate
merit list for male and female candidates - In the instant case,
Petitioner No.2 (Female) who was ranked 4th with 477 marks
(Female Merit List) and Petitioner No.1 (Female) who was
ranked 5th with 447 marks (Female Merit List) denied admission
in preference to one male candidate who secured third rank
with 433 marks in the male merit list - The Petitioners through
this Writ petition sought to declare the aforesaid notification
as ultra vires Arts.14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution, further
publication of a common merit list irrespective of sex of the
candidate so as to give effect to 'gender-neutral' policy of
recruitment in JAG branch - Correctness:
Held: Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution form a
string of constitutional rights which firmly guarantee the right to
equality - The said Articles supplement each other and recognize
the right to equality of opportunity to all the citizens in matters
* Author
1242
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
relating to public employment irrespective of religion, race, caste,
place of birth or sex/gender - Article 33 of the Indian Constitution
carves out an exception to the aforesaid right to equality insofar
as it empowers Parliament to modify the Fundamental Rights
in their application to members of the Armed Forces - It needs
to be emphasised that such restrictions or abrogation must be
made by law passed by Parliament - It is by virtue of the power
conferred by Article 33 of the Indian Constitution that Parliament
has enacted the Army Act, 1950 - Section 12 of the Army Act,
1950 restricts the Fundamental Right of females to join the Indian
Army, except in such corps, department, branch or other body
forming part of, or attached to any portion of, the regular Army
as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify in this behalf - Upon a harmonious reading of
Articles 14, 15, 16, 33 of the Indian Constitution and Section
12 of the Army Act, 1950, no woman is eligible for employment
in the regular Army, except in such corps, department, branch
or other body forming part of, or attached to any portion of the
regular Army as the Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf - Under Section 12 of
the Army Act, 1950, the Respondents had issued notifications on
30.01.1992 (published on 15.02.1992) and 31.12.1992 making
women eligible for appointment as SSC officers in the ten streams,
including JAG - Accordingly, SSC appointments for women in
the above ten (10) streams are limited to Combat Support Arms
and Services and not to Combat Arms like Artillery, Armoured
Division and Mechanised Infantry - Consequently, this Court is
of the view that once the Army permits women officers to join any
corps, department or branch forming a part of the regular Army,
it cannot impose an additional restriction with regard to 'extent
of induction' of women officers in the said corps, department or
branch - as Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 does not empower
it to do so - Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the
impugned notification to the extent that it provides for only three
(03) vacancies for fe

## Text

_Characters 0–39,840 of 123,509. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39840 for what follows._

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1241 : 2025 INSC 954
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr.
v.
The Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 772 of 2023)
11 August 2025
[Dipankar Datta and Manmohan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether after allowing induction of women in a particular
corp or branch under section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, can the
Respondents by way of a policy and/or administrative instruction
restrict the number of women candidates joining the said branch; (ii)
Whether the current policy of Union of India with regard to enrolment
of women in JAG course is 'gender-neutral' or 'gender-specific'.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Arts.14, 15, 16, 33 - Army Act, 1950 -
s.12 - A notification u/s.12 of the Army Act, 1950 was issued for
the JAG Scheme 31st Course, qua Short Service Commission
('SSC') Course for Law Graduates - The said notification allows
induction of women in JAG, and notified three vacancies
for female candidates as against six vacancies for male
candidates - The notification, further, provides for separate
merit list for male and female candidates - In the instant case,
Petitioner No.2 (Female) who was ranked 4th with 477 marks
(Female Merit List) and Petitioner No.1 (Female) who was
ranked 5th with 447 marks (Female Merit List) denied admission
in preference to one male candidate who secured third rank
with 433 marks in the male merit list - The Petitioners through
this Writ petition sought to declare the aforesaid notification
as ultra vires Arts.14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution, further
publication of a common merit list irrespective of sex of the
candidate so as to give effect to 'gender-neutral' policy of
recruitment in JAG branch - Correctness:
Held: Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution form a
string of constitutional rights which firmly guarantee the right to
equality - The said Articles supplement each other and recognize
the right to equality of opportunity to all the citizens in matters
* Author
1242
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
relating to public employment irrespective of religion, race, caste,
place of birth or sex/gender - Article 33 of the Indian Constitution
carves out an exception to the aforesaid right to equality insofar
as it empowers Parliament to modify the Fundamental Rights
in their application to members of the Armed Forces - It needs
to be emphasised that such restrictions or abrogation must be
made by law passed by Parliament - It is by virtue of the power
conferred by Article 33 of the Indian Constitution that Parliament
has enacted the Army Act, 1950 - Section 12 of the Army Act,
1950 restricts the Fundamental Right of females to join the Indian
Army, except in such corps, department, branch or other body
forming part of, or attached to any portion of, the regular Army
as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify in this behalf - Upon a harmonious reading of
Articles 14, 15, 16, 33 of the Indian Constitution and Section
12 of the Army Act, 1950, no woman is eligible for employment
in the regular Army, except in such corps, department, branch
or other body forming part of, or attached to any portion of the
regular Army as the Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf - Under Section 12 of
the Army Act, 1950, the Respondents had issued notifications on
30.01.1992 (published on 15.02.1992) and 31.12.1992 making
women eligible for appointment as SSC officers in the ten streams,
including JAG - Accordingly, SSC appointments for women in
the above ten (10) streams are limited to Combat Support Arms
and Services and not to Combat Arms like Artillery, Armoured
Division and Mechanised Infantry - Consequently, this Court is
of the view that once the Army permits women officers to join any
corps, department or branch forming a part of the regular Army,
it cannot impose an additional restriction with regard to 'extent
of induction' of women officers in the said corps, department or
branch - as Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 does not empower
it to do so - Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the
impugned notification to the extent that it provides for only three
(03) vacancies for female candidates, whereas six (06) vacancies
have been notified for male candidates is violative of Articles 14,
15 and 16 as well as Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 - Though
men and women candidates during the JAG selection procedure
appear before separate boards, yet as the selection criteria and
testing parameters of the fifteen (15) Officer Like Qualities are
identical, this Court is of the view that combined merit list ought
to be prepared. [Paras 39-41, 44-47, 83, 113]
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1243
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16 - Army Act,
1950 - s.12 - Respondent No. 1 placed reliance on Internal
Administration Instruction dated 11.11.2011, which empowers
Service Headquarters to issue appropriate administrative
instruction on induction of women officers including the
extent of inclusion - Reliance was also placed on policy on
induction (Army HQ Policy) dated 14.03.2012, which prohibits
posting/attachment of women officers with Infantry battalions -
Correctness:
Held: Internal Administration Instruction dated 11.11.2011 and
policy on induction dated 14.03.2012 are untenable in law as they
are contrary to the statutory Notification issued under Section 12
of the Army Act 1950 and there is no legal backing for the same
in the Constitution or the Army Act, 1950 - Any restriction qua
the 'extent of induction' cannot be imposed by an administrative
instruction or policy decision of the executive as Parliament has
not conferred this right upon the executive under the Army Act,
1950 - Further, the Respondent's reliance on an internal order
that was published thirteen (13) years ago is erroneous as similar
argument to treat women separately in the armed forces on the
basis of apparent physiological limitations, physical capability to
engage in combat and hygiene conditions has been rejected by
this Court in Babita Puniya. [Paras 51-53]
Constitution of India - Waiver of Fundamental Rights -
Whether permissible - Respondent No.3 submitted that once
the Petitioners had participated in the selection process and
failed to secure a suitable rank for appointment against the
vacancies so notified, they are deemed to have waived their
right to challenge the selection process:
Held: It is settled law that it is not open to the Respondent-Union
of India to contend that a person is not entitled to enforce his/her
Fundamental Rights, in particular his/her Right to Equality, because
he/she has waived it - It is always open to an aggrieved person to
challenge any policy or notification or statutory provision by filing a
writ petition under Article 226 or under Article 32 on the grounds that
it violates his/her Fundamental Rights - It is pertinent to mention
that the marks obtained by the candidates (both male and female)
were not placed in the public domain by the Respondent-Union of
India and it is only in course of this proceeding that the marks were
disclosed; hence, the Petitioners cannot be expected to know of
1244
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the illegality that crept in the process of selection before presenting
the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. [Paras 69, 70]
Words & Phrases - 'Gender neutral' and 'Gender-specific' -
Distinction - Whether the current policy of Union of India with
regard to enrolment of women in JAG course is 'gender-neutral'
or 'gender-specific':
Held: 'Gender-neutral' in ordinary parlance means that no
discrimination shall be made between candidates on the basis of
gender or sex of an individual - The expression 'gender-neutral'
is normally misunderstood and often thought to be synonyms with
the expression 'gender-equality' - A simple analogy to address the
difference would be that when an employer hires the same number
of men and women, it would be deemed to be following the policy of
'gender-equality'; on the other hand, if the employer hires the best
candidate for the job regardless of gender/sex, it would be deemed
to be following the policy of 'gender-neutrality' - Consequently,
the concept of gender-neutrality does not just prohibit sex based
classification but it ensures that the most meritorious candidate
is selected for the job - Also, the principle of 'gender-neutrality' in
service does not preclude or limit deployment in any operational area
or role - The distinction between the two concepts, namely, 'genderneutral' and 'gender-equal' is well known to the Respondents and
the Respondents have accepted and implemented the 'GenderNeutral Policy' as against 'gender-equal' policy - On facts, held,
that male and female JAG officers do not have distinct cadres with
different conditions of service and the true meaning of concept
of 'gender-neutrality' and 2023 recruitment policy is that Union of
India shall recruit the most meritorious candidates in JAG branch
irrespective of their sex/gender as the primary job of this branch
is to give legal advice and conduct cases, but to 'correct the past'
and to 'compensate the women for their previous non-enrolment',
the Union of India shall allocate not less than 50% of the vacancies
to women candidates. [Paras 88-90, 92, 114]
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16 - Army Act, 1950 -
s.12 - Whether Present Recruitment Policy leads to Indirect
Discrimination:
Held: To determine whether the recruitment policy is genuinely
gender-neutral or not, one has to look beyond formal level of
evaluation and take additional factors such as 'impact' or 'effect' into
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1245
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
account - Therefore, 'genuine' gender-neutrality lies in addressing
disparate effects of laws/policy/practice which appear to be facially
fair or equal - In Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha, this Court has held that
indirect discrimination is closely tied to the substantive concept of
equality and the focus in anti-discrimination enquiry has switched
from looking at the intentions or motive of the discriminator to
examining whether a rule, formally or substantively, 'contributes to
the subordination of a disadvantaged group of individuals' - It needs
to be clarified that the use of the terms 'indirect discrimination' is
not to refer to discrimination, which is remote, but is, instead, as
real as any other form of discrimination - The practice challenged
in the present petition results in indirect indiscrimination - The
practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates
has the effect of perpetuating the status quo, which has been
historically discriminatory to women candidates - The result of
such practice is confinement of women candidates, irrespective
of their performance/merit, in their gendered category, thereby
being destructive of not just the Constitutional scheme under
Articles 15 and 16, but also of the concept of 'gender-neutrality'
and 'merit' - Accordingly, despite their performance, the meritorious
women candidates are not being selected only due to their gender.
[Paras 93, 95, 98]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 15,16 - Constitution
and Government Policy towards Women - Discussed.
[Paras 72-82]
Case Law Cited
R. Viswan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1983] 3 SCR 60 :
(1983) 3 SCC 401; Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala [1999]
1 SCR 1121 : (1999) 3 SCC 422; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
India [2017] 10 SCR 569 : (2017) 10 SCC 1; Basheshar Nath v.
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi & Rajasthan and Another
[1959] Supp. 1 SCR 528 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 7; Gopika Nair
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) 3293/2023; Lieutenant
Colonel Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2021] 4 SCR
633 : (2021) 15 SCC 125 - relied on.
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. [2020] 3
SCR 833 : (2020) 7 SCC 469 - referred to.
Dattatraya Motiram More v. State of Bombay, ILR 1953 Bom
842; Babita Puniya v. Secretary & Anr., 2010 SCC OnLine Del
1116 - referred to.
1246
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co.,
1987 SCC OnLine Can SC 37 : (1987) 1 SCR 1114; Taylor v.
Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D.426; Nazir v. King Emperor, AIR 1936
PC 253 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Global Gender Gap Report, 2024; The Oxford Handbook of The
Indian Constitution; Article by C. Raj Kumar, The Times of India
dated January 7, 2025; How India Scaled MT G20 The Inside
Story of the G20 Presidency by Mr. Amitabh Kant.
List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950; Army Act, 1950; Women's Reservation
Act, 2023.
List of Keywords
Article 14 of Constitution; Article 15 of Constitution; Article 16
of Constitution; Right to equality; Gender neutrality; Induction
of women in JAG; Army; Indirect discrimination; Common merit
list; Admission denied; Armed forces; Internal administration
instructions; Gender discrimination; Constitution and government
policy towards women; Merit; Waiver of fundamental rights.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
772 of 2023
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv., Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Anushna
Satapathy, Ms. Radhika Jalan, Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Yashas J,
Ms. Shweta Singh, Vaibhav Yadav, Paras Mohan Sharma,
Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Ms. Radhika Narula, Rishabh Lekhi, Vishal
Sinha, Ms. Ishita Chowdhury.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Kartikay Agarwal, Chitvan Singhal,
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1247
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
Raman Yadav, Ms. Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Purnendu
Bajpai, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj, Irshad
Ahmed, Mahesh Singh, Dr. Ashutosh Garg, Samarth Mohanty,
Abhisth Kumar, Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Vernika Tomar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para Nos.
Primary issue ....................................................................
1
Arguments on behalf of Petitioners ..................................
2-7
Arguments on behalf of Respondent No.3 ........................
8-10
Arguments on behalf of Union of India and Army .............
11-24
Rejoinder ...........................................................................
25-31
Additional Arguments on behalf of the Respondents .......
32-36
Order dated 08th May 2025 ...............................................
37
Reasoning ..........................................................................
38-110
Since notification issued under Section 12 of Army Act,
1950 permits women to join JAG, their number cannot be
restricted in the manner sought to be done ......................
38-50
Circulars of 11th November 2011 and 14th March 2012 are
untenable in law ...................................................................
51-54
Argument that JAG Branch consists of primarily combatants
is misconceived ..................................................................
55-58
Field parity has been institutionalised ...............................
59-61
Argument that women officers are not posted where contact
with enemies is likely, has no basis ..................................
62-68
No waiver of fundamental rights .......................................
69-71
Constitution and Government policy towards women .......
72-82
Impugned notification is unconstitutional as it reserves
double the number of vacancies for males .......................
83
1248
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
The professed policy of enrolment is gender-neutral and not
gender-specific ...................................................................
84-87
Distinction between gender-neutral and gender-equal .....
88-92
Present recruitment policy leads to indirect discrimination ...
93-99
As the nature of tests of male and female candidates is
similar, a combined merit list ought to be prepared ..........
100-103
Constitutionally valid interpretation of the 2023 recruitment
policy implemented w.e.f. 2024 ..........................................
104
Merit-based selection will improve efficiency of JAG ........
105-110
Conclusion ..........................................................................
111-118
Judgment
Manmohan, J.
PRIMARY ISSUE
1.
The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present case is
whether Respondent-Union of India after having issued a Notification
under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 allowing induction of women
in the Judge Advocate General ('JAG') branch could have denied
admission to Petitioner No.2 (Ms.Astha Tyagi), who has achieved the
fourth (4th) rank with 477 marks and Petitioner No.1 (Ms. Arshnoor
Kaur), who has achieved (5th) rank with 447 marks in the merit list of
women candidates in preference to Mr. Himanshu Panwar who has
secured third rank with 433 marks in the merit list of men candidates,
but has obtained lesser marks than the female candidate placed at
Serial No.10 in the Females Merit List in pursuance to the notification
dated 18th January, 2023 for the JAG Scheme 31st Course, qua Short
Service Commission ('SSC') Course for Law Graduates (impugned
notification) on the grounds that the said Notification provides for
separate merit list for male and female candidates and provides for
only three (03) vacancies for female candidates, as against six (06)
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1249
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
vacancies for male candidates. It is pertinent to mention here that
the Petitioners have sought not only a declaration that the impugned
Notification is ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution,
but also publication of a common merit list irrespective of sex of the
candidate and implementation of a real and effective 'gender-neutral'
policy of recruitment in the JAG branch instead of the subsequent
intake policy of the Respondents of having men and women officers
in the ratio of 50:50, which has been branded by the Respondents
as 'gender-neutral'.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
2.
Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners
stated that the selection criteria for male and female candidates in the
JAG branch were not separate as they were assessed on identical
parameters. Only few indicators such as physical attributes were
different. He pointed out that the Service Selection Board ("SSB")
procedure for male and female candidates is identical in content,
structure and evaluation, including the fifteen (15) Officer Like Qualities.
The relevant portion of the procedure and testing parameters of the
Officer Like Qualities considered by the SSB and the conduct thereof
for recruitment to the Indian Armed Forces is reproduced hereinbelow: -
".... Note:
1.
Each candidature is tested for the above mentioned
15 OLQs.
2.
There are mainly three people who test candidates
for 15 OLQs they are: -
(a) Psychologist.
(b) Ground Testing Officer (GTO).
(c) Interviewing Officer.
Three officers are well trained in their fields to
undertake the task. They independently interact
with candidates to assess them for possessing the
15 OLQs.
The Psychologists do not physically interact with the
candidates but assess them on the answers given
by them.
1250
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
CONDUCT OF SSB
DAY
ACTIVITY
TEST
CONDUCTED
TEST PROCEDURE
AND REASON FOR
TEST
REMARKS
Stage 1: This is a coarse filter. The aim is to retain only those candidates who
have the potential and fit to undergo detailed testing for four days. The Stage
1 selection system includes the following:
DAY
1
Stage I
Screening Test
(Intelligence
Test)
1. Intelligence
Test
2. Picture
Perception
and
Discussion
Test
1. Intelligence Test
This is a simple
test of logic /
analytical aptitude
based on which an
intelligence rating
ranging from I to V
is rewarded
2. Picture
Perception and
Discussion Test
Picture is flashed
for 30 seconds.
The candidates
have to broadly
note down seven
basis parameters
viz number of
characters, age,
sex, mood, action
relating to past,
present and future
for each character
in one minute.
Time for story
writing is four
minutes. The key
to performing well
in this test is the
accuracy of their
perception.
Discussion Test
In this phase batch
is divided into
different groups.
Strength of group
is around 15
candidates.
Common
for Men
and
Women
Candidates
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1251
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
Each candidate
narrates his
individual written
story verbatim.
Subsequently,
in Part-II all the
candidates have to
discuss amongst
themselves and
achieve a common
consensus about
the characters
and theme of
the story. In this
phase, candidates
are evaluated
on their power
of expression,
clarity of language
(both grammatical
and logical),
confidence,
participation,
and their ability
to accept and
integrate others'
ideas.
Candidates who successfully clear Stage 1 proceed to Stage 2, which is
based on their individual performance in Stage 1, as well as the administrative
and logistical capacity of the selection center.
The stage-II tests comprise of three different techniques, namely the
psychological tests, group tasks and personal interview. It is emphasized that
in all the three techniques the assessment is of your personality which is
based on specified 15 OLQs (Officer Like Qualities).
DAY
2
Stage-II
Psychological
Test
It is a test of your
mind. Candidate's
answers are
required to be
natural responses
and not
preconceived.
The
Psychological
Test.
The
psychologist
does not
interact with
candidate
nor does he
know them by
their physical
appearance
or attribute.
He assess
personality
merely through
Tests conducted:
i. Thematic
Apperception Test
(TATs) - 60 items:
12 Pictures including
one blank are
shown. Candidates
are asked to write a
story around what
led to the situation,
what is going on
and what would be
the likely outcome.
Each Picture is
shown
Common
for Men
and
Women
Candidates
1252
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the inputs
which
candidates
give.
for 30 seconds
and candidates are
asked to write it in
4 minutes. In the
blank side, they
have to think a
picture of their own
choice and write a
story around that.
ii. Word
Appreciation
Test (WATs) - 60
items:
In this test, a
series of 60 words
are shown to the
candidates one
after another for
15 seconds each.
The candidate is
required to write
down the first
thought or idea that
comes to his mind.
iii. Situation Reaction
Test (SRTs) - 60
items
This test consists
of 60 routine
life situations
regarding day
to day activities.
The situations are
printed in a booklet
and the candidate
is asked to write
his/her reactions
by completing the
sentences, as to
how they would
feel, think and act
in these situations.
iv. Self-Description
Test (SD).
Candidate is
asked to write
five separate
paragraphs on
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1253
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
each context about the
opinion of his parents/
guardian, friends,
teachers/superiors.
Aim of these tests is
to check for 15 OLQs
by Psychologists
independently
Day
3&4
Stage-II GTO
Test
1. Group
Discussion
(GD):
2. Group
Planning
Exercise
(GPE)
3. Progressive
Group Task
(PGT)
4. Snake/
Group
Obstacle
Race
5. Lecturette
6. Half Group
Task (HGT)
7. Individual
Obstacles
Task (IOT)
8. Command
Task
9. Final
Group Task
1. Group Discussion
(GD):
Two topics of
common interest
(social issues and
current events) are
discussed.
It is an informal
discussion and not
a debate. Each
topic is allotted 20
minutes each. No
definite conclusion
is required to be
deduced. There
is no standard
answer.
Done: To assess
communication
skills, ability to
express opinions,
and listen to
others.
2. Group Planning
Exercise (GPE):
It comprises of
five stages viz.,
explanation of the
model, reading of
the narrative by
GTO, five minutes
for self-reading
by candidates,
10 minutes for
individual written
solutions and 20
minutes for group
discussion.
Common
for Men
and
Women
Candidates
1254
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Narration of the
group solution and
definite conclusion
is required.
Done: To evaluate
problem-solving
abilities, logical
thinking, and
teamwork.
3. Progressive
Group Task (PGT)
It is the first
outdoor task. A set
of four obstacles
with progressively
increasing level of
difficulties are to
be completed in
40 to 50 minutes.
Structures. Helping
material and load
are provided to the
group.
Done: To assess
teamwork,
leadership,
determination, and
physical stamina.
4. Snake/Group
Obstacle Race
In this task the
group is pitched
against each other
over a set of six
obstacles with a
snake like load to
carry.
Done: To assess
physical stamina,
coordination, and
teamwork.
5. Lecturette
It is an individual
task and the
candidate is
required to give a
short talk to the
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1255
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
group. Three
minutes are
allowed to prepare
any chosen topic
from the 3-4 given
in the Lecturette
Cards for the talk.
Done: To evaluate
communication
skills, clarity of
thought, and
ability to present
information.
6. Half Group Task
(HGT)
It has one
obstacle similar
to progressive
group task with
helping material
and load to be
carried. Group is
divided into two
Sub Groups and
assigned the same
obstacle in turn in
such a way that
when one group is
working, the other
one is not allowed
to watch it. Time
allotted to each
sub group is 15
minutes.
Done: To assess
leadership,
delegation, and
ability to work
under pressure.
7. Individual
Obstacles Task
(IOT)
A set of 10
obstacles is set
to be tackled
individually.
Obstacles are
numbered from
one carries.
1256
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Each individual
is given three
minutes.
(In certain
instances, female
candidates may
be permitted
to complete 8
obstacles instead
of the full 10.
However, they
retain the option
to attempt the
remaining 2
obstacles, and
marks will be
awarded for
those obstacles
upon successful
completion.
Additionally,
candidates
may repeat
any obstacle,
provided that
all 10 obstacles
are completed
before attempting
again. It is further
stipulated that
the marking
scheme is
uniform for both
male and female
candidates. A
female candidate
who completes
8 obstacles shall
not be granted
marks equivalent
to those awarded
to a male
candidate who
completes all 10
obstacles. This
provision ensures
the integrity
of the testing
process, making
it Gender Neutral.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1257
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
Done: To assess
physical fitness,
determination, and
problem-solving
skills.
8. Command Task:
Each individual
is nominated as
commander for
one task consisting
of one obstacle
similar to be
Progressive Group
Task Time given in
15 minutes.
Done: To assess
leadership
potential, ability to
take charge, and
motivate others.
9. Final Group Task
(FGT).
Task consisting
of one obstacle
similar to the
Progressive Group
Task. Time given to
complete this task
is 15-20 minutes
May include
scenarios involving
problem-solving,
decision-making,
and teamwork.
GTOs closely
observe the
way a candidate
participates in
various tasks
and builds a
personality
profile.
DAY
2-4
Conc
urre
ntly
Stage-II
Interview
The interviewing
officer discusses
by way of
Interview
Tested for 15 OLQs
The interviews are
normally conducted in
the afternoon by the
Interviewing Officer
Common
for Men
and
Women
Candidates
1258
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
questions and
answers the
opportunities you
had in your life
and the positive
or otherwise
benefit you have
derived from
them. It is a test
of your heart.
The interviewing
officer is fairly
senior and
experienced
in the armed
forces. While he
interacts with
you he discerns
whether you
have the qualities
required to be
an army officer.
What you have
done till date
with regard to
your academics,
competitive
exams, your
achievements in
extracurricular
activities, your
interests in
life, sports
you play, your
feelings for your
parents, friends,
teachers and
society at large,
your general
knowledge and
awareness and
your physical and
mental fortitude
are all important
faces of his
assessment.
(IO), who
is also one
of the three
assessors. The
interviews will
carry on from
day 1 to day 4.
Each candidate
is interviewed
only once and
is informed
about it well in
advance. The
atmosphere
throughout
the interview
is relaxed and
informal. The
questions are
generally based
on everyday
experience.
DAY
5
Stage-II
Conference
The three
assessors have
Confirmation
test to select
or reject the
candidate
Common
for Men
and
Women
Candidates
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1259
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
individually
carried out their
assessment.
However,
there is no
discussion as
sharing of facts
of assessment
between
them not any
results of your
performance is
known to them or
anybody else at
the beginning of
the conference.
For the final
result on the
performance of a
candidate all the
three assessors
and all members
of the board
must interact
as also meet
the candidate
in person.
Thus, we have
the final board
conference.
During this,
this individual
assessments are
discussed and
a candidate's
plus points and
weak qualities
are deliberated
upon in detail.
All aspects of a
candidate are
analyzed to see
if he/she has the
required qualities
to be trained to
become a good
armed forces
officer.
......"
1260
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.
He emphasised that the Ministry of Defence in its Press Release
dated 17th March 2023 affirmed that employment in the Indian Armed
Forces is 'gender-neutral' and that there is no distinction in testing,
deployment or working conditions. The relevant portion of the Press
Release is reproduced hereinbelow: -
"Employment in Indian Armed Forces is gender neutral.
There is no distinction in the deployment and working
conditions of male and female soldiers in the arms and
services in which they serve. The postings are as per
organizational requirements and employment is as per
qualifications and service qualitative requirements."
4.
He also stated that the Union of India had repeatedly stated in its
counter affidavit that the selection process for JAG is 'gender-neutral'
and is based purely on merit. In support of his contention, he relied
on para 25 of the counter affidavit which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
"25......The process of shortlisting of candidates for
SSB is done on a gender neutral common cut off
marks obtained by the candidates in CLAT PG Exam.
Secondly the process of Stage I during SSB verily forms
part of a scientifically approved testing process by the
DIPR (Defence Institute of Psychological Research) which
is a premier National Institute responsible for creation and
sustenance of Selection process of Indian Armed Forces....
The process of merit formulation is based on Directorate
General Recruiting/Recruiting 'A' policy No 58538/
Recruiting P&C dated 31 Mar 2004 which has the approval
of the competent authority on whose behalf the Directorate
carries out selection of officers for Indian Army wherein
candidates are placed in order of merit purely based
on the marks obtained by them at the SSB."
(emphasis supplied)
5.
Thus, according to him, there is no rational basis to treat men
and women separately in JAG and any such attempt would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He stated that reference
to any 'operational and functional requirements' is baseless and not
supported by any justifiable reason or empirical data.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1261
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
6.
He submitted that reserving additional seats for men in any public
examination is not permissible and violative of Articles 14, 15 and
16 of the Constitution. The relevant portions of Articles 14, 15 and
16 of the Constitution are reproduced hereinbelow: -
14. Equality before law. -The State shall not deny to
any person equality before the law or the equal protection
of the laws within the territory of India.
15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex or place of birth- (1) The State shall
not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
xxx
xxx
xxx
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for women and children......
16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment- (1) There shall be equality of opportunity
for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be
ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any
employment or office under the State....."
7.
He submitted that seats can only be reserved for women in view of
Article 15(3). The other seats must be kept unreserved and filled
up exclusively through merit. In support of his submission, he relied
upon Dattatraya Motiram More Vs. State of Bombay, ILR 1953
Bom 842, wherein it has been held as under: -
"......In our opinion, if that was the object of enacting art.
15(3), then art. 15(3) need not have been enacted at all
because if the special provision for women contemplated
by art. 15(3) were only those provisions which did not
discriminate against men, then no proviso to art. 15(1) was
necessary. Article 15(3) is obviously a proviso to art. 15(1)
and proper effect must be given to the proviso. It is true that
in construing a proviso one must not nullify the section itself.
A proviso merely carves out something from the section
1262
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
itself, but it does not and cannot destroy the whole section.
The proper way to construe art. 15(3) in our opinion is that
whereas under art. 15(1) discrimination in favour of men
only on the ground of sex is not permissible, by reason of
art. 15(3) discrimination in favour of women is permissible
and when the State does discriminate in favour of women
it does not offend against art. 15(1). Therefore as a result
of the joint operation of art. 15(1). and art. 15(3) the State
may discriminate in favour of women against men, but it
may not discriminate in favour of men against women......"
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.3
8.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.3 pointed out that on 24th July, 2023, the instant writ
petition had been filed by the Petitioners, after having participated in
the selection process and having failed to secure a spot in the woman's
merit list (ranked 4th and 5th) dated 14th July, 2023 for appointment
against the vacancies notified for JAG branch of the Indian Army,
31st Course, October, 2023, inter-alia on the ground that notification
was discriminatory as the vacancies notified for men were greater
(6) than those notified for women (3). He submitted that once the
Petitioners had participated in the selection procedure and failed
to secure a suitable rank for appointment against the vacancies so
notified, they are deemed to have waived their right to challenge
the selection procedure.
9.
He stated that Respondent No.3 a successful candidate having
secured the 6th rank in the men's merit list dated 21st July 2023, was
not made a party to the said writ petition.
10. He contended that Respondent No.3, who had bona fide participated
in the selection process and succeeded therein, was now on the
verge of losing the opportunity to join the Army for no fault of his. He
prayed that this Court may take a sympathetic view as Respondent
No.3 has now become overage and is not eligible to participate in
any further recruitment examination for the JAG branch.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA AND ARMY
11. At the outset, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General ('ASG') fairly handed over marks of all the candidates (male
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1263
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
and female) as per merit list who had appeared in SSC (JAG-31)
Course. The mark lists are reproduced hereinbelow:-
MERIT LIST : SSC (JAG)-31 (MEN) COURSE (OCT 2023)
Vacancy as per Notification - 06
Merit
Roll No
Name
DoB
SSB
MARKS
1.
900525
SURYA DEV SINGH
BHANDARI
27/12/1997 548
2.
900023
AKASH
12/10/1998 485
3.
900039
HIMANSHU PANWAR
17/08/1998 433
4.
900482
PATH MEHTA
27/12/1999 431
5.
900130
RAJAS JANI
12/8/1996
425
6.
900096
SUNEET SINGH
8/12/1996
424
7.
900188
SOURABH SHUKLA
24/07/1997 404
8.
900020
AABID KHAN
28/03/1998 395
9.
900423
SANEER SINGH
DAHIYA
4/10/1998
394
10.
900216
UJJUAL SINGH
22/06/1998 392
11.
900123
HARSH KUMAR
29/05/1999 392
12.
900476
AMIT CHOUDHARY
14/10/1997 385
13.
900248
RITIK SHARMA
9/11/1998
382
14.
900613
SHAMS SIDDIQUI
23/08/1996 378
15.
900608
SHAMAL SANGAM
10/7/1998
374
16.
900332
ADEET SRIVASTAVA
6/12/1998
373
17.
900107
PUNEET JANGID
1/4/1999
369
18.
900094
ABHISHEK KANDWAL 25/02/1999 368
1264
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
MERIT LIST : SSC (JAG)-31 (WOMEN) COURSE (OCT 2023)
Vacancy as per Notification - 03
Merit
Roll No
Name
DoB
SSB
MARKS
1.
950016
VANISHA UPADHYAY
31-Mar-98
494
2.
950089
CATHERINE JIMMY
1-Dec-98
492
3.
950153
AMANATBIR KAUR
23-Feb-98
490
4.
950023
ASTHA TYAGI
27-Jul-99
477
5.
950245
ARSHNOOR KAUR
6-Nov-96
447
6.
950209
DEEKSHA TRIPATHI
19-Jul-97
447
7.
950145
SAMYUKTA MENON
30-May-97 446
8.
950007
LAVANYA YADAV
30-Aug-98
444
9.
950415
RASHMI KUMARI
23-Sep-00
438
10.
950114
SHRUTI PATHAK
2-Jul-96
437
11.
950057
NANDANI ANAND
21-Jan-99
429
12.
950077
SAUMYA KATARA
11-Jan-98
424
13.
950284
AISHWARYA SETHI
6-Aug-99
423
14.
950249
HIMANSHI CHOUHAN 13-Oct-98
421
15.
950477
KAJAL RAI SADANA
10-Jun-99
407
16.
950485
KAMNA CHOPRA
6-Jun-97
406
17.
950433
ANUSHRI SANTOSH
SHUKLA
14-Jun-00
405
18.
950159
VAISHALI TOMAR
19-Oct-97
402
19.
950033
PRIYANKA GOYAL
14-Sep-96
401
20.
950039
POOJA JANGRA
15-Jul-98
397
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1265
Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.
21.
950461
NEHA RATHORE
16-Feb-97
396
22.
950357
KIRANDEEP KAUR
5-Aug-97
392
23.
950168
RHYTHM SINGH
THAKUR
10-Jan-97
385
24.
950131
SHIVANI PATEL
18-Dec-98
366
12. Learned ASG submitted that maintenance of defence forces is a
sovereign function and it is up to the Service Headquarters to decide
the induction of Women Officers, including the 'extent of induction',
so as to ensure that fighting efficiency, combat effectiveness and
functionality of Armed Forces are maintained. She contended that all
JAG Officers are combatants and there is a likelihood of all of them
being deployed in combat. In support of her contention, learned ASG
relied upon Union of India's Policy on Induction and Employment of
Women in Armed Forces dated 11th November 2011. The relevant
portion of the said Policy is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"2. Respective Services Headquarters will issue appropriate
administrative instruction on induction of women officers
including the extent of induction, so as to ensure that
fighting efficiency, combat effectiveness and functionality
of the Armed Forces are maintained."
13. She emphasised that the services in Indian Army cannot be compared
with any other services, be it public or private. According to her,
determination of vacancies is based on war time requirement to
maintain optimal functional and operational need and thus, the same
is gender-specific and not 'gender-neutral'.
14. She stated that initially Women JAG Officers on commissioning were
being posted in JAK LI (Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry) Regiment
Centre for a period of twelve (12) weeks only. She emphasised that
at that time i.e. in 1992 training of Women Officers for the combat
role was not a part of their induction and employment in the Indian
Army as it was not a permanent cadre.