A continuing constitutional conversation: Locating Nitisha

In April 2021, the Supreme Court of India decided Nitisha v Union of India, holding that the gender neutral hiring procedure adopted by the Indian Army indirectly discriminated against women officers by disproportionately excluding them from promotion. This effect was experienced due to systemic discrimination against women built into the appointment criteria. To redress systemic discrimination, the State was required not only to abstain from direct or indirect discrimination but also to positively act to bring in structural change. Nitisha makes significant contributions to developing the constitutional understanding of non-discrimination. It identifies the essential nature of discrimination as systemic rather than individualistic and sets out how systemic discrimination operates and can be proved. In recognising indirect discrimination, it lays down a two-stage test to establish it. Crucially, it affirmatively holds, for the first time, that the non-discrimination guarantee can compel State action in redressing systemic discrimination. Nitisha leaves certain questions unanswered: the test for justifying indirect discrimination, the doctrinal reading of the non-discrimination guarantee and the legitimacy of using comparative law. However, seeing Nitisha as one chapter of a constitutional conversation allows us to appreciate its contributions while holding the space open for future judicial efforts at constitutional meaning-making.