Introduction
In the present society, a tattoo embodies love, grief, spirituality, specific events, and sometimes personal choices. However, such preferences can potentially hinder one’s career opportunities. To avoid such issues, Tattoo removal is a procedure where a person can remove a tattoo through Laser surgery, Surgical removal, and Dermabrasion. After undergoing such a procedure there will be a scar which denotes that there was a tattoo previously, which in further days heal. If we delve into the present scenario such scars have resulted in disqualification. Cases have been filed before the High Courts seeking relief and guidelines under such circumstances.
What Is The Issue?
A candidate has been declared unfit to join the Delhi Police by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) citing a faded tattoo visible on his right forearm during the medical examination conducted. The matter is brought before the Delhi High Court by the petitioners( Staff Selection Commissioner) against the candidate. A writ petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Law: Staff Selection Commission and Others v Deepak Yadav, 2024[1].
Seeking the following prayer: “Quash and set aside the per-se perverse order dated 22.04.2024 in OA No. 597/2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.”[2]
Counsel representing the petitioners contend that the Review Medical Board’s decision is final. Applicants have a deadline to remove their tattoos; if they do not comply, their applications will be rejected. As a result, the individual in issue has been deemed unfit according to these criteria.
Decision Of The Court
The respondent was asked to make a personal appearance in court. It was observed that the respondent’s right forearm tattoo is invisible to the naked eye. Both the petitioners’ counsel and the court officers present agreed with this viewpoint. In place of a visible tattoo, there is a faint scar. Given that these scars frequently appear spontaneously, candidates should not be rejected solely on this basis. At this stage, the Hon’ble Judges referred to a division bench judgment in the case of Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India v. Sanyogita (2024:RJ-JD:20026-DB), wherein while dealing with a similar issue, the High Court of Rajasthan had observed the following[3]:
“A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that what could be made a ground for disqualification of a candidate would be existence of tattoo mark. The background in which the tattoo mark has been treated to be a ground for medical unfitness has been stated in the first part of the provisions. It is stated that such tattoo marks are not only distasteful but also distract from good order and discipline in the force. However, there is no absolute prohibition in having a tattoo mark. The provisions carve out exception that a candidate despite having tattoo mark, would not be held to be medically unfit.”
It is therefore considered that there were no errors in the order passed by the learned tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to allow the respondent to join the second batch for training within a week from the said order.
Author’s Opinion
In my opinion, the authorities must ensure a proper examination of all the candidates who wish to work under the state authority or in any job where a tattoo is not acceptable. Since it is known that tattoo is not allowed, a certain duration of time will be given and within the said time the tattoo would be removed. After the surgery, there will be a faded scar which will consume time to heal and hence, that faded scar cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. Referring to the case of Chandan Kumar v Union of India and Others[4], W.P. 21946 (W) of 2016, The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the review medical board constituted by the respondents by which he has been declared to be medically unfit to hold the post of a Constable (GD) in the Board Security Force (BSF, for short). the petitioner was found to be medically unfit for having a tattoo mark on the right upper arm. Referring to a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Abhay Kumar v. Union of India[5]. (W.P.(C) 10634 of 2016). The Division Bench in its order dated January 27, 2017, had mentioned the guidelines for medical examination of candidates appearing for employment as ‘Constable’ in different services. “Their Lordships were pleased to hold that there is nothing in the guidelines in terms whereof a candidate can be debarred only on the ground of having a tattoo mark. There is a striking similarity between the facts and circumstances of the two cases. In the case before the Delhi High Court, the tattoo mark had been operated upon leaving some scar marks. The Division Bench had noted that this was not a functional disability and the petitioner cannot be said to be medically unfit. Even the contention of the respondents that the right hand is a saluting hand, was rejected as such a stand is not backed by any specific rule debarring a candidate with any marks on the forearm from being appointed”.
In this case, the petitioner’s right upper arm bore the scar left behind when a tattoo was removed. As a result, the respondents terminated the petitioner’s employment without providing any basis for their decision to consider him medically unfit. The respondents acted in a way that was fundamentally false and unjustified.
Also, in the case of Akshay Choudhary v Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, and others. W.P.(C) 5602/2024, the court held that [6]“ Strictly, there exists no tattoo post the tattoo removal surgery, and also, prima facie, the Tattoo Clause, does not stipulate that if a scar under the removal of a tattoo is unhealthy/unhealed, the same would lead to disqualification of a candidate, but we find that there was a cogent purpose for the Medical Board/Review Medical Board to examine the scar pursuant to the surgery to ensure that the visible part of the hand while saluting is clear in all respect. To that extent, the conclusion of the Review Medical Board may be justified. But the fact remains that the Review Medical Board should not have examined the petitioner immediately after a few days of surgery and should have given sufficient time to the petitioner to ensure healing of the scar and then decide the fitness/unfitness of the petitioner”.
It is known that there are certain measures to be followed while deciding the eligibility of a candidate, a tattoo cannot be a ground for disqualification. Scar healing tends to take time and accordingly medical examination needs to be conducted. Tattoo isn’t a disability to consider a person or a candidate unfit. In certain situations, even when there has been given time duration to remove the tattoo and the same instruction hasn’t been followed, only then a person can be considered to be ineligible.
Conclusion
The New Delhi High Court verdict emphasizes the necessity of appraising persons based on their potential and quality rather than their outward looks. Even though physical appearance can be essential in some cases, a tattoo scar that remains visible after removal should not be the sole reason to disqualify someone. It is critical to strike a balance that respects individual choices while avoiding unneeded impediments. Our eligibility rules must evolve to reflect shifting social norms.
Author(s) Name: Siri Gowri P (KLE Law College, Bengaluru)
References-
[1] Staff Selection Commission and others v Deepak Yadav. W.P. (C) 10084/2024.
[2] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5162.
[3] Union Of India vs Sanyogita (2024:Rj-Jd:20026-Db).
[4] 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 3866 : (2017) 3 Cal LT 336.
[5] Abhay Kumar v Union of India, (W.P.(C) 10634 of 2016).
[6] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3817.
