Can Person With Tattoo Enter Police Force? What Delhi High Court Said

The Delhi High Court in a recent order has refused to set aside an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowing a man to join police services after tattoo removal as he was eligible for the post in all the other aspects. The Staff Selection Commission had challenged the CAT order upholding the man’s appointment as a police constable.
The high court directed the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to allow the man to join the training scheduled in the month of November, 2024.
The man qualified in the examination for the post of Constable Male conducted by SSC and the examination as well as Physical Endurance and Measurement Test conducted by the Delhi Police. The document verification was also done on the day when the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test was held.
However in the Detailed Medical Examination, the man was declared unfit because he had a tattoo mark depicting the religious symbol of (OM) on his right forearm. Later, in a Review Medical Examination he was again declared unfit again because of the tattoo.
As a result, the man could not make it to the final selection list. He approached CAT against the Review exam order.
The CAT allowed him to join Delhi police after tattoo removal as he was eligible for the post in all the other aspects. The Delhi High Court upheld this order after noting that the tattoo was no longer visible on his arm post surgery.
The bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia held that any person with a tattoo should be given an opportunity to have the tattoo removed in a time bound manner and a scar from the tattoo should not be a reason to disqualify such a candidate. The person appeared in the court and the court examined his forearm to see if the tattoo mark was visible.
”During the course of hearing before this Court, the respondent has appeared in person and by showing his right arm he submits that he has already got the tattoo removed by surgery…We have physically seen the right forearm of the respondent and from the naked eye, the tattoo is not even visible. The same has been shown to the counsel for the petitioners and the officials of petitioners, who are present in Court to assist learned Senior Panel Counsel. The fact is that as on the date, the respondent does not have a visible tattoo on his right forearm and also, he is otherwise eligible in all aspects,” the bench said.