A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Delhi High Court has raised objections to the prerequisites for candidates applying to become officers in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army, including the need to appear for the Common Law Admission Test Post Graduate (CLAT-PG).
This litigation is slated for review on November 28, with a Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna granting the counsel for the Central government time to seek instructions.
The plea specifically targets the provisions outlined in the notification for the 33rd JAG entry scheme course, claiming these conditions are arbitrary and contravene the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21. According to the 2023 notification, aspirants are retroactively required to have appeared for the CLAT-PG exam conducted in December 2022. It is significant to note that the Indian Army had announced in December 2021 that starting from the 30th course, a score from the previous year’s CLAT-PG would be mandatory for registration.
The petition argues that the mandate for CLAT-PG scores is unreasonable, pointing out that the notification specifies that these scores are not a factor in the actual selection process. The PIL further challenges other eligibility criteria, such as the requirement for candidates to be unmarried and to have no history of arrest. The Delhi High Court has previously deliberated on the latter criterion.
In December 2022, a Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and then-Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma questioned the rationale behind linking marital status with eligibility for JAG training, instructing the Central government to elucidate this connection.
In defense, the government articulated in March that the restriction on marital status for candidates aged 21 to 27 is a reasonable constraint, tied to national security and the public interest, applicable only during recruitment and the pre-commission training phase, citing the intense physical and mental demands of this period. A similar PIL presented to the Karnataka High Court in September 2022 was dismissed after two months.
The bench, including Justice Ashok S. Kinagi and Chief Justice PB Varale, concluded that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to contest the decisions of the selection agency.
