Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Exclusive Reservation for Women in Military Nursing Services

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has invalidated the provision of 100 percent reservation for women in the Indian Military Nursing Services, deeming it unconstitutional. The decision, handed down in the case of Sanjay M Peerapur & Ors vs Union of India and Ors, has far-reaching implications for gender-based reservations in public employment.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, delivering the verdict, emphasized the primary purpose of reservation being accommodation and inclusion. He stated, "If such an accommodation... becomes exclusive and hundred percent, without justifiable grounds, then such exclusive reservation ceases to be a reservation in its true sense and it amounts to an exclusion which is not envisaged under the Constitution at all."

The case, initiated by two male petitioners challenging the 2010 notification for nursing officer recruitment, contested the validity of Section 6 of the Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943. This section provided 100 percent reservation for women in the cadre of 'Nursing Officers.'

The petitioners argued that Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution, empowering the Central government to make special provisions for women and children, had no role in matters of public employment. They asserted that Articles 14 and 16, ensuring equality and prohibiting discrimination, should prevail.

The Union of India defended the exclusive reservation for women, citing the need to fill temporary vacancies during wartime. The Court, referencing the Supreme Court's Indra Sawhney judgment, agreed that Article 16(2) overrides Article 15(3) in public employment matters, and reservation should not exceed 50 percent.

The Court highlighted the absence of a guarantee that recruitment processes for men and women would occur simultaneously, emphasizing the denial of equal opportunity under Article 16. It suggested a balanced approach, proposing reservation for both genders in units where exclusivity currently exists.

Asserting that women are rightfully considered a separate class under the Constitution, the Court clarified that 100 percent reservations based solely on gender violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16(2). It struck down the exclusive reservation for women as unconstitutional, directing the Union government to consider the male petitioners for nursing posts.

Crucially, the Court assured that earlier appointments made under the ordinance would remain unaffected by the verdict. This landmark ruling challenges the conventional understanding of gender-based reservations in public employment.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News Writer, MIT ADT University