**Supreme Court Criticizes Gender Disparity in Army JAG Appointments**
The Supreme Court has expressed strong disapproval of the government’s handling of gender disparity in appointments to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Army. During a hearing on Wednesday, the court questioned the classification of the JAG position as gender-neutral when vacancies are still divided into male and female categories.
The bench raised concerns about the rationale behind restricting female officers to specific areas, asking, “Once women are allowed in JAG, why is discrimination being made by being posted in A or B area, and why can’t they be deployed everywhere?” This statement highlighted the court’s emphasis on the necessity for equal opportunities across all postings within the military.
The case arose from a challenge to the JAG entry notification, which revealed a significant imbalance in vacancy distribution—six positions reserved for men compared to only three for women. The court also voiced strong objections to the limited deployment of female JAG officers in combat or frontline roles.
In defense of the current policy, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the government’s decision to restrict women from combat zones is aimed at preventing them from becoming Prisoners of War, framing it as a policy choice rather than discrimination. He acknowledged the contributions of female JAG members, citing their roles during operations like the Balakot strike, but maintained that the traditional male-dominated structure of the fighting force remains necessary.
The court challenged this perspective, questioning how half of the population could be excluded from certain areas in modern times. The bench asserted, “You cannot exclude them and then say only the men will fight,” emphasizing the importance of inclusive mobilization in a country with a vast population and numerous security challenges.
The court further clarified its stance on merit, stating, “We are not saying that a person who is less deserving should get in, but people on lower merit can’t be taken only because of gender.” The justices concluded that such a philosophy is not suitable for the Army.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s remarks underscore the urgent need for gender equality in military appointments, particularly within the JAG branch, as it calls for a reevaluation of policies that limit women’s roles in the armed forces.
**FAQ**
**Q: What was the Supreme Court’s main concern regarding the JAG appointments?**
A: The Supreme Court criticized the gender disparity in JAG appointments, questioning the classification of the role as gender-neutral while vacancies are still divided by gender.
