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.

2021 年 4 月，印度最高法院裁定Nitisha v Union of India 案，认为印度军队采用的性别中立招聘程序间接歧视了女性军官，不成比例地将她们排除在晋升之外。这种影响是由于任命标准中对妇女的系统性歧视而产生的。为了纠正系统性歧视，国家不仅要避免直接或间接歧视，而且要积极采取行动带来结构性变化。尼蒂沙为发展对非歧视的宪法理解做出了重大贡献。它将歧视的本质确定为系统性而非个人主义，并阐述了系统性歧视如何运作和如何证明。在承认间接歧视时，它制定了一个两阶段的测试来确定它。至关重要的是，它第一次肯定地认为，不歧视保证可以迫使国家采取行动纠正系统性歧视。Nitisha留下了一些未解决的问题：证明间接歧视正当性的测试、对不歧视保证的教义解读以及使用比较法的合法性。然而，看到尼提莎作为宪法对话的一章，我们可以欣赏它的贡献，同时为未来的宪法意义制定司法努力留出空间。