Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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