E-Paper
Measuring chest of women forest guard candidates violates dignity: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has criticized the inclusion of chest measurements as a criterion for female forest guard candidates, calling it a violation of women's dignity and privacy rights. The court has directed officials to reevaluate the criterion or relevant rule and seek expert opinions for alternative methods of assessing lung capacity. Although the plea of three women petitioners was dismissed due to the completed recruitment process, the court emphasized the need for a review of the necessity of chest measurements for female candidates in future recruitments.
The Rajasthan High Court has denounced the inclusion of chest measurements as a criterion in the physical standards for female candidates applying for the job of a forest guard, deeming it a clear dent on the dignity of women and their right to privacy, as provided by the constitution.
A single bench presided over by Justice Dinesh Mehta, while dismissing the plea of the three women petitioners due to the completed recruitment process, has directed the state’s chief secretary, forest secretary, and secretary of the department of personnel to reevaluate this criterion or the relevant rule.
The court stated: “They may seek expert opinions to explore alternative methods for assessing the desired lung capacity level, ensuring the avoidance of unnecessary humiliation for women candidates.”
The court’s attention was drawn to the case of three female petitioners who contested their rejection based on the Physical Standard Test (PST) parameters. Although these women had successfully cleared the Physical Efficiency Test, they were disqualified due to not meeting the stipulated chest measurement norms.
“While the respondents’ assessment of the petitioners does not appear erroneous, this Court is deeply disturbed by the parameters set forth by the respondents to determine the physical standards of female candidates. The act of establishing chest measurements as a criterion, especially for female candidates, is unequivocally arbitrary and, to say the least, outrageous. It constitutes a clear violation of a woman’s dignity and her privacy rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court said in its strongly-worded judgment.
“The size and expansion of a female candidate’s chest do not necessarily reflect physical fitness or lung capacity. Even if they did, such measurements intrude upon a woman’s privacy. Aside from being irrational, imposing such a criterion infringes upon a woman’s dignity, bodily autonomy, and mental well-being,” the bench observed.
“Since the recruitment process has concluded, and all candidates, including the petitioners, have undergone this test, the Court will not disrupt the completed recruitment. However, a thorough review or observation regarding the necessity of chest measurements for female candidates is essential, whether it is for the recruitment of Forest Guards, Foresters, or any other position,” the court further stated.
“The size of a woman’s chest, in the Court’s view, is irrelevant when determining her strength. The qualifying criteria, based on incorrect assumptions that a minimum chest girth guarantees a woman’s physical fitness, lacks scientific validity. This practice is humiliating, derogatory, and an affront to a woman’s dignity,” the court said.
“Given that candidates are already required to pass the Physical Efficiency Test, which includes a 1.35-metre Standing Broad Jump and throwing a 4 kg shot put 4.5 metres, the stipulation of a minimum chest circumference appears irrational and unnecessary,” the bench noted.
“It has come to our attention that no such test is required for female candidates applying for the position of Police Constable. While measuring expansion to determine lung capacity is understandable and acceptable, mandating a ‘minimum chest circumference’ is utterly absurd and cannot be justified. Modern tests are available for this purpose, and if the authorities prefer not to use such methods, they can require candidates to run a specific distance, as the State does for Police Constable recruitments,” the court pointed out.
Mehta said the court was “troubled” by the “lack of sensitivity” shown by the administration.
“The Court is troubled by the lack of sensitivity exhibited by the administrative authorities while formulating hiring policies and rules. This not only appears to lack scientific foundation but also displays immodesty. Additionally, since the criterion of minimum chest size is not applied to other government jobs that involve comparable or more physical activity, such as Police Constables, there seems to be no logical rationale behind this particular criterion, especially for female candidates,” the bench reasoned.
