The Centre told the Delhi High Court that the policy of putting a bar on marriage during the training period of those recruited in the Indian Army’s Judge Advocate General department is a “reasonable restriction” placed in public interest and keeping in mind national security.

The government’s stand came in response to a PIL filed by Kush Kalra against a notification declaring married men and women as ineligible for recruitment into the army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG).

In an additional affidavit filed in response to a petition challenging the embargo, the central government stated that the condition of being unmarried for grant of commission to cadets aged 21 to 27 years is “restricted only for the period of recruitment and pre-commissioned training”. This involves a great deal of stress and rigorous military training, and the restriction on marriage before successful commission is in the interest of both the candidates and the organisation, it added.

The government further said since pregnancy and giving birth to a child was considered a natural right for a woman and she could not be deprived of that, “such precautionary conditions” have been laid down in the interest of woman candidates.

“Since pregnancy and giving birth to a child is considered a 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 woman candidates,” the response read.

Regarding male officers, the government stated that the rigours of training and the first few years of duty make it impossible for an officer to get married during training or to meet certain necessities of married life, including emergency situations.

The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Dutta granted time to the petitioner to file a response to the Centre’s stand and posted the matter for hearing on July 17.

Read all the Latest India News here