LexJASBIR KAUR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JASBIR KAUR AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. B NOVEMBER 13, 2003 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Army Act, 1911-lndian Military Nursing Service Ordinance, I943- C S-I 1 Military Nursing Act-Determination of Dress Code for Indian Military Nursing Services (lMNS)-The Code challenged as violative of Article I4 of Constitution as the dress code made IMNS a separate class-Different views given by different High Courts-In appeal and in transferred cases from High Courts, Held: Dress code not violative of Article 14-IMNS despite being part of Indian Army is a separate class by itself-Determination of uniform D is entirely within the province of Chief of Army staff by virtue of provisions of the Acts and Regulations made thereunder-Constitution of India, 1950- Article I4. Additional Director General Military, Nursing Services, issued a Dress Code for members of Indian Military Nursing Services (IMNS). In the wake E of the dress code a number of problems arose in the hospital environment. In order to solve the problems another order was passed to modify the dress code. Writ petitions were filed by members of IMNS before different High Courts challenging the order on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. High Courts of Bombay, Allahabad and p Karnataka dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that no issue pertaining to Fundamental Rights arose as the issue of prescribing uniform for IMNS was a matter well within the competence of military authorities. Other High Courts admitted similar writ petitions. Special Leave Petitions against the dismissal orders by High Courts were admitted and all the pending writ petitions before High Courts were transferred to this Court. During pendency G ofSLPs a representation was made to this Court by Central Government to the effect that they desired appoint a Review Committee to consider the question of uniform and permission for appointment was granted by the Court. 'Military Nursing Service Dress Review Committee' was constituted and after considering objections made by IMNS, the Committee gave its report. H 516 ..... JASBIR KAUR v. U.0.1. 517 Petitioners contended that the prescribed uniform was violative of A Article 14 as it was intended to discriminate against the members of the IMNS by making them out to be a separate class; and that no heed was paid to their objections before the dress code was finally decided. Dbmissing the petitions, the Court B HELD: I. That Indian Military Nursing Service is a separate class, sui generis, even though an auxiliary force of the Indian Military, is an undeniable fact. The historical background in which this force was established and the legal provisions applicable to it leave no manner of doubt that, notwithstanding that it is a part of the Indian Army, IMNS is a distinct but separate class by C itself. l:i any event, whether any part of the military services should have any uniform, and, if so, what should be the uniform, is an issue entirely within the province of The Chief of Army Staff by reason of Army Act, the Indian Military Nursing Act and the Regulations made by the Chief of Army Staff by the powers derivable therefrom. There is no scope for application of Article 14 in such matters, nor is any case made out therefor. [522-E-Gl D 2. The Dress Review Committee has meticulously applied its mind to several objections raised by the representatives of the IMNS. Each objection has been carefully examined and appropriate recommendation has been made by the Review Committee. Apart from affording an opportunity of putting forth their views in the matter, the members of IMNS could not have asked for E anything higher. Each grievance has been carefully considered and addressed by the Dress Review Committee, and it is for the Army authorities to take appropriate decision. A decision such as the one challenged can hardly be faulted unless on the ground ofWednesbury principle of rationality. There is no such irrationality in the decision of the Army Act which requires this F Court to interfere in exercise of its constitutional powers. [523-A-C) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Transfer Case (C) No. 38 of2002. WITH G T.C. (C) Nos. 39-42, 46, 54-56, 70/2002, S.L.P.(C) Nos. 12904-12909, 14275 and 14487 of 2002. R. Venkataramani, M.N. Krishnamani, Sunil Jha, Ajay Kumar Jain, Ashok Panigrahi, Ms. Abha and R. Sharma for the P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.