Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court held that women candidates cannot be denied induction against unfilled male vacancies in corps already notified under Section 12 of the Army Act. The Court directed that the petitioners—aspiring to join the Army through the Short Service Commission (Non-Technical)—be considered for the 62 unfilled vacancies earmarked for men. It clarified that their deployment would only be against the ten corps and services identified by the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India. The Court also directed that all pre-training requirements such as medical clearances must be complied with, and the benefit of the ruling would apply only to petitioners within the prescribed age limit on the date of declaration of the result .
Facts
The petitioners, young women aspirants, appeared in the Combined Defence Services Examination (CDSE II) 2021 for the Short Service Commission (Non-Technical) entry. The notification provided 169 vacancies for men and only 16 for women. While all 16 women’s vacancies were filled, only 107 of the 169 male vacancies were utilized, leaving 62 seats vacant.
The petitioners contended that they had cleared the examination and should be considered against these unfilled male vacancies. They argued that limiting women’s induction violated constitutional guarantees of equality and gender neutrality. Two of the original seven petitioners had already been selected, so the case survived only for the remaining candidates .
Issues
- Whether women candidates can be inducted against unfilled male vacancies in corps where their recruitment is permitted under Section 12 of the Army Act.
- Whether restricting women’s intake by policy or executive instruction violates constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and gender neutrality.
- Whether the doctrine of estoppel prevents candidates from challenging recruitment rules after participating in the process with knowledge of vacancy distribution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that restricting them to 16 vacancies while leaving 62 male vacancies unfilled was unconstitutional and discriminatory. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India, which held that once women are permitted into a branch under Section 12 of the Army Act, the extent of their induction cannot be limited by administrative instruction.
They submitted that the right to equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, read with Section 12 of the Army Act, mandates gender-neutral recruitment where women are already allowed entry. They contended that fundamental rights cannot be waived, and thus, their participation in the process did not estop them from challenging unconstitutional restrictions. Corrected surety bonds and other documents had been filed, showing readiness to comply with all requirements .
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that vacancies for men and women were separately fixed by policy, factoring in operational needs, combat preparedness, and field realities. It submitted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arshnoor Kaur was limited to induction in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch and could not be extended to all corps.
It was contended that restricting the number of women officers was a legitimate policy decision to ensure operational efficiency. The respondents further argued that having participated in the selection knowing the fixed women’s vacancies, the petitioners were estopped from challenging the process after failing to secure a place .
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 12 of the Army Act, which allows the Central Government by notification to open specific corps and services to women. The 1992 notifications identified ten such corps. The Court, relying on Arshnoor Kaur, emphasized that while the government can decide which corps women may join, it cannot impose an additional restriction on their numbers once inducted.
The Court distinguished between combat arms (e.g., Artillery, Armoured Divisions) where women are not permitted, and combat support arms/services where women are allowed without any numerical cap. It held that administrative instructions restricting women’s induction were ultra vires Section 12 and violated constitutional mandates of gender neutrality .
Precedent Analysis
- Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1668): Held that once women are allowed entry into a corps under Section 12, their numbers cannot be restricted. Applied directly here.
- Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) 7 SCC 469: Recognized women’s right to permanent commission, though noting courts should avoid interfering in policy matters. Distinguished by the Court since Arshnoor Kaur had already considered it.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959 AIR 149): Cited to affirm that fundamental rights cannot be waived.
- Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019) 20 SCC 17: Applied to hold that estoppel does not bar challenges to unconstitutional recruitment practices.
- Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 1: Emphasized courts’ role as “sentinel on the qui vive” in protecting fundamental rights .
Court’s Reasoning
The Court rejected the Union’s contention that Arshnoor Kaur was limited to the JAG branch, noting that paras 45–50 of that judgment expressly covered all ten corps notified under Section 12. It emphasized that once induction is permitted, restrictions on extent of induction are unconstitutional.
On estoppel, the Court relied on Puttaswamy and Meeta Sahai to hold that participation in the process does not preclude a candidate from challenging discriminatory policies. It reiterated that “elimination of artificial chromosomal distinctions between women and men is a cherished constitutional goal.”
The Court clarified that entitlement to these vacancies would depend on suitability for the ten notified corps, fulfillment of age criteria, and pre-training clearances. It held that petitioners cannot be denied merely because the vacancies were originally earmarked for men .
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition, directing that the petitioners be considered for appointment against the 62 unfilled male vacancies, limited to the ten corps/services notified under Section 12 of the Army Act. Their selection would be subject to medical and pre-training formalities, as well as compliance with the age limit.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional mandate of gender neutrality and ensures women are not arbitrarily excluded from opportunities in the Armed Forces where they are legally entitled.
Implications
This judgment carries wide implications for gender equality in military recruitment. It strengthens the jurisprudence on gender neutrality, making clear that once women are admitted to a corps, artificial caps cannot be imposed. The ruling will influence recruitment policy by pushing the Armed Forces towards merit-based selection without gender quotas. It also safeguards fundamental rights by ensuring that discriminatory restrictions cannot be shielded by pleas of policy or operational considerations.
FAQs
1. Can women claim unfilled male vacancies in Army recruitment?
Yes. The Court held that once women are permitted under Section 12 of the Army Act, they cannot be restricted by male quotas, and unfilled vacancies must be open to them.
2. Does participating in the recruitment bar women from challenging it later?
No. The Court held that fundamental rights cannot be waived, and candidates can still challenge discriminatory practices even after taking part in the process.
3. Which corps are open to women under Section 12 of the Army Act?
Ten corps notified in 1992, including Army Postal Service, JAG, Education Corps, Signals, Engineers, Intelligence Corps, and others, are open without any restriction on extent of induction.