The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant ruling for candidates aspiring to join India's Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), stating that removing tattoos after a detailed medical examination and before a review assessment is not allowed. The court dismissed the petition of an aspiring constable who sought to be declared medically fit after getting his tattoos removed following an initial 'unfit' declaration.
Court Upholds Integrity of Medical Examination Process
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, presiding over the case, observed that the petitioner's conduct was "not countenanced." The aspiring constable had been declared medically unfit on December 3, 2025, during his detailed medical examination due to tattoos on his right forearm and right flat foot. Subsequently, the candidate got the tattoos removed on December 6, 2025, and then sought a review medical examination to challenge the initial report.
The court firmly stated that a candidate's health condition, including the presence of tattoo marks, must be assessed based on their status on the date of the detailed medical examination. "If there is an anomaly in the Detailed Medical Examination, the candidate has the right to prefer a review before the concerned medical board, but removal of a tattoo after Detailed Medical Examination and prior to Review Medical Examination in pursuit of being declared medically fit is found to be not permissible," the court elaborated in its order dated January 2, 2026.
Arguments Presented and Judicial Reasoning
Advocate Debasish Kundu, representing the petitioner, argued that his client should now be declared fit in the review since he had removed the tattoos from both body parts. However, the state's counsel, Advocate Ram Chandra Agarwal, opposed the plea, highlighting the sequence of events: the medical exam on December 3 and the tattoo removal on December 6.
Justice Bhattacharyya pointed out the petitioner's attempt to remove the tattoos after preferring a review and questioning the detailed medical examination report. The court underscored that the review process is meant to challenge an alleged error or anomaly in the original assessment, not to present a physically altered candidate. The plea was consequently dismissed.
Contrast with Delhi High Court's Earlier Ruling
This judgment presents a different stance from a previous ruling by the Delhi High Court in a related matter. In that case, the court had ruled that if a candidate has a tattoo considered objectionable by the recruiting authority (like the Delhi Police), they should be granted a time-bound opportunity to get it removed during the selection process. Failure to remove it would lead to candidature rejection.
That case involved an aspiring Delhi Police constable, Deepak Yadav, who was declared unfit due to a faded tattoo on his right forearm (the saluting arm). The Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of the candidate, emphasizing the opportunity for removal. The Calcutta High Court's recent ruling clarifies a distinct scenario where alteration occurs after the formal medical assessment has already been conducted and challenged.
This ruling by the Calcutta High Court sets a clear precedent, reinforcing that the medical fitness standards for CAPF recruitment are fixed at the stage of the detailed medical examination. Candidates cannot alter their physical attributes post-assessment to qualify, thereby upholding the standardization and integrity of the recruitment process for India's armed forces.
