The Delhi High Court has questioned the legality of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) guidelines barring candidates with tattoos on their right forearms from joining the central armed police forces [Vipin Kumar v Union of India and Ors]. .According to the MHA guidelines, tattoos are permissible only on the left forearm, considered the non-saluting limb, and must be of limited size. The rules further specify that only tattoos with religious symbols or names are acceptable. The government says that the restriction is to maintain “good order and discipline” and to prevent the spread of “western-influenced skin art.”.A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that the guidelines are prima facie questionable. “We have queried of Mr. Rajendra Sahu, learned SPC for the respondents as to whether such a guideline is at all sustainable in law. As, prima facie, we are of the view that the basis for disqualifying the petitioner may be questionable, issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued,” the Court ordered. The case will be heard next on November 17. .The Court passed the order on a plea filed by one Vipin Kumar challenging the government decision barring him from recruitment to the post of motor mechanic vehicle after examiners found a tattoo on his right forearm.Kumar argued that the tattoo should not be grounds for disqualification and even offered to undergo surgery to have it removed if necessary. .After considering the case, the Bench expressed surprise at the rule, noting that the presence of a tattoo alone did not seem a valid reason to deny someone employment.“A reading of the aforesaid guideline indicates that the respondents do not find anything amiss if the tattoo is on “traditional sites of the body like inner aspect of the forearm” but are agreeable to the tattoo being only on the left forearm and not on the right forearm. This appears to be because of “the present young generation is considerably under the influence of western culture” and engraving of skin art,” the Court observed..Advocate Utsav Jain appeared for the petitioner. Union of India was represented through Advocates Rajendra Sahu and Vinod Sawant. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
