The Rajasthan High Court has recently denounced the practice of utilizing chest measurement as a criterion for assessing the lung capacity of female candidates during the physical examination in recruitment.
The court labeled this approach as entirely arbitrary and offensive, constituting an affront to the dignity of women. In response, the court directed state authorities to solicit expert opinions in order to explore potential alternative methods for gauging the desired lung capacity level “to avoid this unwarranted humiliation of women candidates”.
Justice Dinesh Mehta articulated these sentiments while rendering a decision on a petition brought forth by 3 female candidates who contested their disqualification based on chest measurement, despite successfully clearing the Physical Efficiency Test for the role of Forest Guard.
The court preferred not to intervene in the recruitment process, which already took place, but stated, “some deliberation is necessary about the very requirement of chest measurement for the female candidates, may it be for the recruitment of Forest Guard or Forester or any other post”.
Furthermore, the judge emphasized that such measurements encroach upon a woman’s privacy, and beyond being irrational, prescribing such criteria disrupts a woman’s dignity, personal autonomy, and mental integrity, as underscored in the order dated August 10.
The court stated in its order, “Even if it be so, such measurement impinges upon or intrudes on the privacy of a female. Apart from being irrational, prescribing such criterion disrupts the dignity, bodily autonomy and mental integrity of a woman.”
Furthermore, the court observed that such criteria not only inherently arbitrary and offensive, but it also impairs a woman’s dignity and infringes upon her constitutionally safeguarded rights to privacy, as enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioners stated in court that their measurements exceeded the prescribed standards, prompting the high court to request a report from the medical board of AIIMS.
However, according to the reports, the chest measurements of two candidates were less than requirements under “normal conditions,” while one candidate exhibited a chest measurement that was less than required in the “expanded condition”.
In light of this report, the court dismissed their petitions and upheld the decision of the recruitment agency to disqualify them. Nonetheless, the court staunchly objected to the application of chest measurement among female candidates.
Furthermore, the copy of the order was forwarded to the state’s chief secretary, the secretary of the forest department, and the secretary of the department of personnel, urging a comprehensive reconsideration of this practice.
The court ordered these authorities to seek expert opinions with the aim of identifying alternative means for evaluating the desired level of lung capacity.
