An advocate had filed public interest litigation (PIL) against a notification given by the Indian Army stating that a married candidate whether male or female would be ineligible for the post of JAG in the Indian Army.
The Central Government of India defended its policy of introducing only unmarried men and women as Judge Advocate General in the Indian Army by claiming that the Constitution of India does not provide Right to marry as a Fundamental Right.
However, the Central Government of India clarified that provision of marriage is only till the period of recruitment and pre-commissioning training and after completion, the candidates are free to enter matrimonial life.
In addition, the Central Government stated the logic behind the policy was to make sure basic military training is given to the candidates.
Further, it is speculated that married cadets may seek to leave to fulfill their matrimonial obligations which would result in irregularity of their training. It is also important to understand that pre-commissioning training involves a high level of physical and mental stress and strain.
The Centre has stated that the policy is in no violation of any Fundamental Right and recruitment policy of the Army is well within the Constitutional Framework. Adding further, the Centre has stated that Article 33 of the Indian Constitution has given few exceptions to the armed forces in their application of fundamental rights.
In denial of violation of article 14 of the Indian Constitution of India, the Centre claims there has been no discrimination on gender grounds and also said that the policy is imposed on both male and female, across all sections of the army.
The matter is listed to be heard on July 18 by the High Court.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
