Right to meaningful family life part of right to life under Art 21: Delhi High Court allows transfer of IAS officer from WB to TN

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that the right to a meaningful family life, which helps in retaining physical, psychological and emotional integrity, would "find a place in the four corners of Article 21" of the Constitution of India (Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru v. Union of India)..A Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh held,"We have no doubt that the right to meaningful family life, which allows a person to live a fulfilling life and helps in retaining her/his physical, psychological and emotional integrity would find a place in the four corners of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, when the State unreasonably denies a request of an employee [in this case, the petitioner] seeking inter-cadre transfer, it impinges upon such person’s right to demand respect for her/his family life.".The Court was hearing a plea by an IAS officer from the West Bengal cadre who sought issuance of a direction to the State of West Bengal to communicate its non-objection to the Government of India's Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), in her request for an inter-cadre transfer after she married a Tamil Nadu-cadre IAS officer.The Government of Tamil Nadu communicated a no-objection to the request, but the State of West Bengal expressed its inability to grant consent, reasoning that it was facing an acute shortage of officers. However, the State of West Bengal offered to absorb the petitioner’s spouse if he wished to transfer..The petitioner accepted her then situation for the next three years, after which she made another representation. When there was no movement on the matter despite a reminder, she moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which directed the respondents to reconsider the request.As the matter did not receive the required attention, the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court..During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that she had been meted out discriminatory treatment, since the request of several other officers on similar grounds had been considered.Further, it was stated that the petitioner’s request was in line with provisions in an Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Government of India's Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions and the DoPT, as well as the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954.It was argued that the petitioner’s well-being and family relationships had been gravely affected due to the State’s decision, and violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).“The petitioner is unable to strike a balance between her work and personal life. The obdurate approach of the State of West Bengal has prevented the petitioner from starting a family.”.On the other hand, the West Bengal government argued that COVID-19 has created a dire need for the services of administrative officers, and the refusal of the petitioner’s request must be viewed in this context.Further, addressing the OM relied on by the petitioner, the State argued that the same was to ensure that married couples are posted in the same place, but does not confer any right on the officer to demand a specific cadre..However, the Division Bench did not find merit in the State’s contention regarding shortage of officers or the COVID-19 pandemic.“Apart from trotting out a vague reason that there is a shortage of officers, nothing has been placed on record, which would persuade us to accept the State of West Bengal’s stand that because of shortage of officers, the petitioner’s request for inter-cadre transfer could not be entertained.”Therefore, it was stated that since the State of West Bengal did not submit relevant data, its bald and vague reasons for not allowing the transfer could not be accepted..Although the Court accepted that an inter-cadre transfer cannot be effected without the concurrence of the State government, it was emphasised that the refusal of a request for transfer on the ground of marriage required cogent reasons and would be subject to judicial review..Further discussing the provisions of the 1954 Cadre Rules and the OM, the Bench found that the object was to ensure holistic progress and well-being of the members of AIS.“The object and purpose appear to be to enhance the efficiency of the officers by ensuring that they are not weighed down because of marital discord and unhappiness on the home front,” the Court held..Merit was found in the petitioner’s submission that her right to family life had been "infracted" on denial on her request. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that every individual has the right to insist that the State respects her/his private and family life, home and correspondence, was discussed by the Court to buttress the observation..Concluding that an unreasonable denial of a request by an employee seeking inter-cadre transfer in such a manner impinges on their right to demand respect for their family, the Court allowed the writ petition..The State of West Bengal was directed to issue a no-objection directive towards the petitioner's request, within two weeks of the receipt of the judgment.The Union of India was directed to act on the no-objection and effect the desired inter-cadre transfer of the petitioner from West Bengal to Tamil Nadu..Advocates Anwesh Madhukar, Prachi Nirwan and Tanima Gaur appeared for the petitioner and the respondents were represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Bharathi Raju and Advocate Madhumita Bhattacharjee..[Read Judgment]