In the case of Kanika Maurya & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 6770 of 2025, the Petitioners sought the Delhi High Court to look into a clear case of gender discrimination in the Indian Army’s selection process for the 58th NCC Special Entry Scheme. While male candidates had a cut-off percentage of 65%, female candidates were required to achieve a much higher score of 75% “to be eligible to appear for the SSB Selection Board”. The petitioners, despite securing commendable academic scores above 65%, were denied the chance to appear for the Services Selection Board (SSB) interview solely because they were women. However, the Delhi High Court, by way of an interim order dated 24 May 2025, permitted the Petitioners to participate provisionally, pending the final decision in the case.
This article discusses the historical trends in the NCC’s selection criteria, checks if there has been similar gender-based differences in the past, and looks at how this case relates to the larger conversation about gender equality in the constitution and the courts. It also references important Supreme Court rulings in Babita Puniya, Lt. Col. Nitisha, and the ongoing Ashnoor Kaur case to evaluate the legality of these practices.
Historical Background
The NCC Special Entry Scheme allows qualified NCC Certificate holders to join the Indian Army directly, skipping the written exam. Usually, candidates are shortlisted based on their academic scores, and then they go through SSB interviews. In previous NCC Special Entry Courses like the 55th, 56th, and 57th data that is publicly available shows a pattern of similar or almost identical cut-offs for both male and female applicants. For example, in the 57th Course, the cut-off percentage for both men and women was fixed at 60% across the board. However, the petitioners, despite meeting this qualifying criterion, were excluded from the selection process solely on the basis of gender, which formed the core grievance in the writ petition. with slight differences depending on state quotas and the distribution of vacancies.
The 58th Course is a big change, showing a “whopping” 10% difference in eligibility requirements “between men and women, and a 25% increase in cut-off percentage from the base marks”. The Army hasn't given any official reason for this change. It's assumed that women have to meet tougher standards even though there are only a few spots available, which is not only unclear but also brings up important constitutional issues.
Additionally, the Indian Army, similar to many defence organizations, has traditionally taken a careful stance on including women. Yet, in the last few years, the courts have advocated for changes and the elimination of unfair practices. The 58th NCC course shows a concerning trend: instead of creating more chances for gender-neutral entry, the Army seems to have strengthened obstacles under the “cloak”of "merit." There has been no clarification on why female candidates need to score 10% higher than their male counterparts just to have the same chance to attend the SSB.
This noticeable difference in cut-off scores shows an underlying bias that reflects outdated stereotypes suggesting that women are only fit for military positions if they are "extra qualified." The Supreme Court has consistently dismissed this kind of reasoning.
Recent Legal Trends
The Landmark Supreme Court case Secretary, Ministry of Defence Babita Puniya V Union of India “highlighted this gender inequality.” In this significant ruling, the Supreme Court firmly eliminated discriminatory obstacles that women in the Indian Army encounter regarding the awarding of Permanent Commissions (PCs). The Union of India claimed that physical differences, societal roles, and operational issues warranted the exclusion of women from specific positions or long-term service. The Court dismissed these reasons as gender-based stereotypes that clash with constitutional values. It stated that institutional choices, even if they appear neutral on the surface, should not continue historical disadvantages or mirror prejudiced beliefs about the roles of women.
One of the Apex Court's key observations were: "The submissions made by the Union of India are rooted in sex stereotypes based on assumptions about socially assigned gender roles that discriminate against women." The ruling clarified that equality under Article 14(Right to Equality) goes beyond just treating everyone the same; it requires that policies be unbiased, even if that bias is unintentional.
When women are asked to score more than men to get the same job, it puts extra pressure on them just because of their gender. This is called indirect discrimination. That’s exactly what happened in Kanika Maurya, where the Army required women to score 75% while men needed only 65% for the same NCC entry.
The Apex Court stressed: "The idea that women are the 'weaker' sex and should not take on tasks that are 'too difficult' for them goes against the constitutional principles of equality and dignity." By imposing a higher academic requirement for women, the Army's policy in Kanika Maurya implicitly indicates that women need to demonstrate more merit to be considered equally, a perspective that the Supreme Court has strongly rejected. The Babita Puniya ruling thus acts as a binding precedent against unfair distinctions that place a heavier burden on women candidates compared to men, particularly in military recruitment.
The second landmark judgement being B. Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India, (2021) 2 SCC 620 in this significant case, the Supreme Court clarified that even rules that seem neutral can lead to unfair outcomes, with indirect discrimination. “The brief of this dispute was that women Army officers were evaluated based on criteria like performance reviews and medical examinations, but they hadn't been provided the same opportunities as men to demonstrate their skills. As a result, the identical rules ended up being applied unfairly”. The “Apex” Court pointed out that merely treating everyone equally isn't sufficient if certain groups such as women, face harsher impacts due to underlying social and structural obstacles. The Apex Court made it clear
- Indirect discrimination happens when a seemingly neutral policy ends up putting a specific group of people at a disadvantage.
- Just having formal equality doesn’t mean there’s real equality. It’s not enough to treat everyone the same; we also need to make sure everyone has fair access.
This is directly relevant to the case of Kanika Maurya v. UOI. The Army’s requirement of 75% for women and 65% for men might seem neutral, but it unfairly prevents many qualified women from succeeding. It ignores the real challenges that women, especially those from less privileged backgrounds, encounter. The Court in Nitisha emphasized that equality isn’t just about applying the same rules to everyone, it's about ensuring that those rules are fair for all.
The third case C. Ashnoor Kaur v. Union of India (Pending before the Supreme Court) is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. It addresses gender discrimination in defence recruitment, similar to the situation in Kanika Maurya. In the case of Ashnoor Kaur, the petitioner is contesting rules that make it more difficult for women to qualify for selection in the National Defence Academy (NDA) or other defence services. Even though the final judgment is still awaited, this case holds significance as it questions the fairness and constitutionality of applying different standards for men and women in recruitment.
The main question is the same as in Kanika Maurya: Is it acceptable for the Army to impose different and stricter requirements on women without a legitimate reason?
The Court will determine if having different rules for men and women violates the right to equality as stated in Article 14. The outcome of Ashnoor Kaur could alter the way the armed forces establish their recruitment policies moving forward. If the Court finds these rules to be unjust, it will back the claims of women candidates who are being unfairly excluded similar to what happened in Kanika Maurya.Start writing here...
