Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Chest Measurement Criterion for Female Candidates Deemed Arbitrary and Violative of Dignity: Rajasthan High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking decision, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Dinesh Mehta, has ruled that the practice of using chest measurements as a criterion for determining physical standards, particularly for female candidates, is “absolutely arbitrary, rather outrageous to say the least.” The court’s decision came in response to a civil writ petition filed by three female candidates who were rejected during the Physical Standard Test (PST) for the post of Forest Guard.

The court observed that the requirement of chest measurement, which was being used to assess the strength and fitness of female candidates, was scientifically unfounded and amounted to a violation of the dignity and privacy of women. “It is a clear dent on a lady’s dignity and right of privacy guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court stated.

Justice Dinesh Mehta further noted that the size of a woman’s chest and its expansion are not necessarily indicative of physical fitness, and such a criterion impinges upon a woman’s autonomy and mental integrity. The court expressed its concern over the lack of sensitivity exhibited by the administrative authorities in formulating such criteria.

The court’s decision not only addressed the specific case at hand but also raised broader questions about the rationale behind such criteria in recruitment processes. The judgment recommended a revaluation of the chest measurement criterion and suggested that experts’ opinions be solicited to explore alternative means of determining the desired level of lung capacity without subjecting female candidates to unwarranted humiliation.

This landmark judgment not only highlights the importance of upholding the dignity and rights of female candidates in recruitment processes but also underscores the need for a more sensitive and scientific approach to determining physical standards for all candidates.

Date of Decision: 10/08/2023

Vandana Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News