Judgment Directing Gender Neutral JAG Appointments Doesn't Apply Retrospectively : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently clarified that its judgment striking down of reservation for men in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) post of the Indian Army should not apply retrospectively in the ongoing recruitment.
Pursuant to the August 11 judgment of the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v UOI, in which it held that the recruitment in JAG must be gender-neutral, petitioner Seerat Kaur had approached the Court seeking relief by way of appointment in the 35th recruitment cycle(October 2025).
As per her contention, in the merit list published on July 10, she scored an overall 6th rank, out of a total number of 8 recommended candidates, women and men combined. However, despite the merit, the petitioner has not been selected. She prayed that the notification for the 35th recruitment be applied in a manner that if 100% women candidates are eligible on merit, all seats should go to them, as said in the Arshnoor Kaur judgment.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih clarified that since the notification for the 35th recruitment was issued before the Court's judgment, it does not apply because it had said that recruitment must be conducted "henceforth" in the manner prescribed in the Arshnoor Kaur judgment, particularly in paragraph 117.
"Having regard to the observations made in paragraph 117 of the decision of this Court in “Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors.” to the effect that Union of India shall “henceforth” conduct recruitment in the manner specified in the judgment as well as publish a common merit list for all Judge Advocate General ('JAG') candidates, i.e., for all male and female candidates, and make the merit list public together with the marks obtained by all the candidates participating in the selection process, we see no reason to hold that the directions contained in such judgment will apply retrospectively so as to affect any process of recruitment for appointment to the post of JAG that has been initiated prior thereto, including the 35th recruitment cycle which is under consideration."
However, since, as an interim measure, the petitioner was permitted to join the training course, the Court permitted her to continue if she wishes. Additionally, the Court said that if, in any case, one of the eight candidates is unable to complete their training, then only the petitioner may be accommodated. But this shall not be treated as a precedent.
"We hasten to observe that if all the eight selected candidates successfully complete their training and are appointed, the petitioner shall have no right to seek appointment based on the result of the 35th recruitment cycle. However, in the event, fortune smiles on the petitioner and any of the eight candidates undergoing training pulls out or is otherwise declared disqualified or in case any other vacancy arises where she can be accommodated, she may be considered for appointment on successful completion of training. The aforesaid direction is made as a very special case and shall not be treated as a precedent for future case."
With the said directions, the matter has been disposed of.
Case Details: SEERAT KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.|Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).928/2025
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv., Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Chitrangda Rashtravara, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Nithin Pavuluri, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Ritika Singhal, Adv. Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, AOR Ms. Deeplaxmi Matwankar, Adv. Ms. Manreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Ghanashyam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Aulluck, Adv. Ms. Samta Pushkarna Mishra, Adv