The Supreme Court in the case Arshnoor Kaur and another vs Union of India observed and has issued the notice on the writ plea wherein the grievance is raised that the lesser number of vacancies are earmarked for the women in the posts of Judge Advocate General, JAG.
The bench comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the case observed and has issued the notice to the Union Government which is returnable with the period of two weeks.
The court in its order stated to keep aside two of the notified vacancies till the next posting date.
In the present case, the petitioner moved the plea challenging the notification dated January 18, 2023 for the Judge Advocate General, JAG the Entry Scheme 31st Course, wherein the applications are being invited from Law Graduates, the men, and women. It was also being pointed out that while six of the vacancies are earmarked for men and only three vacancies are earmarked for women.
Further, the petitioner, the two women candidates contended before the court that double the number of vacancies are earmarked for male candidates and the same being discriminatory.
The petitioner in the pela also stated that they had secured rank 4 and rank 5 in the common selection process. Thus, as the large number of vacancies are earmarked for the male candidates, despite the better merit, they will be deprived of their entitlement for appointment as JAG officers.
It has also been asked by the said court that why the petitioners are directly approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Adding to it, the Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan replied that the Court has entertained other matters pertaining to gender inequality in armed forces recruitment.
The counsels, Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR, Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv., Ms. Suvangana Agarwal, Adv, Mr. Rishabh Lekhi, Adv, Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv., Mr. Devesh Mohan, Adv., Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv., Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv and Ms. Anjali Goyal, Adv. Appeared for the petitioner.
