Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

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