Barring married cadets from applying for JAG in army a reasonable restriction: Centre to Delhi high Court
The Union government told the Delhi high court that confining the recruitment for the Judge Advocate General (JAG), the legal officer in the army, to unmarried men and women is a “reasonable restriction placed in public interest and the interest of national security”
New Delhi: The Union government on Wednesday told the Delhi high court that confining the recruitment for the Judge Advocate General (JAG), the legal officer in the army, to unmarried men and women is a “reasonable restriction placed in public interest and the interest of national security”.
Explaining the rationale behind the policy barring married individuals from applying for JAG, the government in an affidavit filed before the court said the cadets have to undergo a high amount of stress and rigours of military training and the restriction on marriage before successful commission is in the interest of the candidates as well as organisation.
“Having regard to the effects of marriage, the bar of marriage is a reasonable restriction placed in public interest and national security...due to such thought of policy governing the entry of males and females in Indian Army, either men or women officers, do not require them to resign or give up their service due to marriage or marriage related natural consequences if they get married after completion of training and are granted commission,” the Centre said in its latest affidavit.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Datta was hearing a petition by lawyer Kush Kalra, who challenged the exclusion of married individuals from applying for the post. On Wednesday, the court granted time to the petitioner to file his response to the Centre’s stand and posted the matter for hearing on July 17.
During the previous hearing in the case last year, the court had asked the Centre to file an additional affidavit detailing the rationale to exclude married men and women in JAG.
The government in its affidavit said there is no discrimination between men and women in the army, adding that military training is compulsory for all recruits before enrolment, irrespective of the arm and service they belong to.
“In all types of entries, unmarried clause is common… in the Indian Army both males and females are treated equally and granted equal opportunity in all service conditions and benefits,” it said. “The condition of being unmarried for both male and female candidates aged between 21-27 years for grant of commission is restricted only for the period of recruitment and pre-commissioned training which involves a high amount of physical and mental stress, strain and rigours of military training.”
The affidavit further said that once unmarried lady cadets and gentlemen cadets complete their training and are granted commission, “there is no bar for getting married or its natural consequences of pregnancy etc and service benefits viz. maternity leave, child care leave, paternity leave or married accommodation etc.”
During conduct of Basic Military Training, which lasts for a minimum one year, such provisions are not possible, it said. “Since pregnancy and giving birth to a child is considered as natural right for a woman and she cannot be deprived of that, while formulating the rules such precautionary conditions have been laid down in the interest of women candidates themselves,” the Centre said in its reply.
“With regard to male officers, the answering respondents, without prejudice, respectfully submit that the rigor of training and initial years of service do not permit an officer to get married during training or to address certain requirements of married life to include situations of emergency,” it added.
Absence of more than three weeks during training leads to the cadets losing a term and being relegated to a junior term and further absence leads to discharge, the government informed the court.
“Thus, the prohibition of marriage during training period and before successful commission is felt to be a reasonable restriction put in the interest of the candidates as well as organisation,” it added.
In the PIL, petitioner Kush Kalra, who was represented by advocate Charu Wali Khanna, has termed as “institutionalised discrimination” the restriction on married individuals from being considered for JAG.
The petition has questioned the basis for barring married individuals from joining JAG, citing that marital status is not an eligibility criterion for the “equally ranked” judiciary and civil services.
In its earlier affidavit filed in March 2019, the government said that right to marry cannot be a right to life under the Constitution and there was no discrimination on the basis of marital status of the candidates.
JAG is the legal advisor to the chief of the army staff in matters of military, martial and international law, the plea has said. It has sought that the special army instructions of 1992 and 2017, which disentitle married women and married men, respectively, from applying for JAG be declared as void.