The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the Central government on a petition challenging the allocation of Territorial Army officer vacancies between male and female candidates, with the petitioner alleging that women have been restricted to a single vacancy in recruitments conducted since 2022.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the Union government on the petition filed by Kush Kalra. The case concerns the recruitment policy for officers in the Territorial Army and the manner in which vacancies are allocated between male and female candidates.
According to the petition, the Territorial Army recruitment process provided 12 vacancies for men and one for women in 2022. The figures cited for 2023 and 2025 were 18 vacancies for men and one for women in each year, while the 2026 recruitment reportedly provided 11 vacancies for men and one for women.
The petitioner has challenged what he describes as a continuing disparity in vacancy allocation, arguing that the practice violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The petition further contends that the vacancy structure does not adequately reflect the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling concerning women’s eligibility for appointment to the Territorial Army.
The case has its background in a 2018 judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kush Kalra v Union of India. In that judgment, the court examined a challenge to the exclusion of women from recruitment to the Territorial Army. The court held that the expression “any person” in Section 6 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 includes both men and women. It also quashed the then-existing advertisements and policy to the extent that they excluded women from appointment to the Territorial Army.
The 2018 judgment noted that Section 6 of the Territorial Army Act states that any citizen of India may offer themselves for enrolment, subject to prescribed conditions. The court distinguished this provision from Section 6A of the Act, which contains a specific statutory exclusion of women in relation to compulsory service.
The present petition alleges that, despite the earlier judgment, separate vacancy allocations have continued to be maintained for male and female candidates. The petitioner has therefore questioned whether limiting women candidates to one vacancy in successive recruitment cycles is consistent with the legal position established by the earlier ruling. These are the petitioner’s claims and remain subject to consideration by the court.
The latest proceedings do not amount to a final determination on the validity of the current vacancy policy. The Division Bench has issued notice to the Central government, which has been asked to respond to the petition.
The issue is significant in the context of women’s entry into the Territorial Army. The 2018 judgment had established that the statutory expression “any person” under Section 6 could not be interpreted as excluding women. The present litigation instead focuses on the subsequent allocation of vacancies and whether the distinction in the number of seats available to men and women is legally sustainable.
The court’s consideration will therefore involve the distinction between eligibility to apply and the manner in which vacancies are structured. While the earlier judgment addressed the exclusion of women from Territorial Army recruitment, the current plea challenges the alleged disparity in the number of vacancies offered to male and female candidates.
The matter also forms part of a broader series of legal proceedings concerning women’s recruitment and service opportunities in the armed forces. In a separate 2025 matter, the Delhi High Court had dealt with the issue of unfilled men’s vacancies and consideration of women candidates against certain vacancies in specified Army corps and services. That case involved different recruitment circumstances and should not be treated as a ruling on the present Territorial Army vacancy dispute.
For now, the Centre’s response will be an important next step in the proceedings. The government will have an opportunity to explain the basis for the vacancy allocation and address the petitioner’s contention that the existing structure is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and the earlier Delhi High Court judgment.
The Delhi High Court’s notice therefore brings the question of gender-based vacancy allocation in Territorial Army officer recruitment under judicial examination, while the substantive validity of the present policy remains to be determined in the proceedings.
