Bar on entry of married men and women in JAG is in the public interest, national security: Centre to Delhi High Court

The bar on married men or women from being considered for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) department, the legal wing of the Indian Army is a reasonable restriction placed in public interest and national security, the Central government has told the Delhi High Court. .In an affidavit, the government said that the condition of being unmarried for both male and female candidates between age 21-27 years is restricted only for the period of recruitment and pre-commissioned training which is necessary because it involves high amount of physical and mental stress, strain and rigours. 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 and service benefits like maternity leave, child care leave, paternity leave or married accommodation. But during the basic military training, which lasts for minimum one year, such provisions are not possible, the government stated. "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 response read. .With regard to male officers, the government said that the rigour 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."Any absence of more than 3 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's stand has come in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Kush Kalra against a notification declaring married men and women as ineligible for recruitment to the post of JAG in the Indian Army.The government had earlier opposed the plea arguing that the Constitution of India does not stipulate right to marry as a fundamental right.However, the court had questioned the rationale and asked the government to file an affidavit explaining the policy. .The petition was listed for hearing today. After taking the government's response on record, a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Datta gave the petitioner time to file its rejoinder to the same. The matter will now be considered on July 17. .Advocate Charu Wali Khanna appeared for the petitioner. Central government was represented through Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma.