Jaipur : The Rajasthan High Court has criticised the inclusion of women’s chest measurements as a criterion for evaluating their physical fitness, deeming it insensitive and detrimental to women’s dignity. The court’s stance comes as a response to the disturbing practise of considering breast size as a parameter for passing women’s physical examinations. The court’s condemnation underscores the importance of treating women with respect and fairness in all evaluation processes. This ruling was made in connection with a plea filed by three women candidates who participated in the sports fitness test for the Forest Guard position.
The court has directed authorities to find an alternative method for measuring lung capacity and emphasised the importance of seeking expert opinions for devising such alternatives. Additionally, the court has recommended that measures be taken to prevent women candidates from experiencing humiliation due to the existing practise. The court’s decision is a testament to its commitment to ensuring fairness and respect in all evaluation processes.
Furthermore, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that while existing recruitment procedures need not be interfered with, careful consideration and revisions should be made to future sports aptitude tests. The court’s ruling particularly underscores that standardising women’s chest size for evaluation, whether it’s for a forest guard position or any other role, is inappropriate and unjust. The court also highlighted the violation of the right to privacy guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 in this context.
Meanwhile, the court dismissed the petition filed by the candidates based on a medical board’s report that assessed the respiratory fitness of the three individuals. The petitioners had argued in court that they possessed the requisite lung capacity for the recruitment. To ascertain the validity of their claims, the court had called for a report from the medical board of AIIMS.
According to the medical report, two of the candidates fell short of the required lung capacity under normal conditions, and one candidate fell short under expanded conditions. As a result, the court ruled against the petitioners, taking into account the medical findings.
Comments