The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the Centre's policy that restricted the number of women who can be appointed to the Army's Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said that restricting the seats of women is violative of the right to equality.
The bench said the selection should be based only on merit.
The top court was hearing a writ petition of two women, who ranked fifth and sixth in merit, and challenged the Army's gender-based vacancy split (six for men, three for women) in the JAG Entry Scheme, arguing it unfairly denied them selection despite higher eligibility.
"The executive cannot reserve vacancies for men. The seats of six for men and three for women are arbitrary and cannot be allowed under the guise of induction. The true meaning of gender neutrality and the 2023 rules is that the Union shall select the most meritorious candidates. Restricting the seats of women is violative of the right to equality," the bench said.
Justice Manmohan directed the Centre to induct one of the two petitioners to be commissioned in the JAG department.
The second petitioner is not entitled to any relief, the court found.
"No nation can be secure if such policies are followed. Union is directed to conduct recruitment in the aforesaid manner and publish a combined merit list for all candidates, which includes men and women candidates," the bench said.
Earlier, the bench, while reserving judgment, had stated that it was "prima facie" satisfied with the case made out by the petitioner and had directed her induction.
The court had strongly questioned the rationale for a fixed male-female intake ratio, arguing that true gender parity means eligibility based on merit and not quotas.
"If women can fly Rafales, why place limits on them in the Army's legal branch?" it had said.
The Centre had defended the system, citing operational requirements and wartime attachments.
