Holding

The power to prescribe uniform for the IMNS rests with the Chief of Army Staff under the Army Act and the Indian Military Nursing Service Ordinance, and the dress code does not violate Article 14 (or Article 21) of the Constitution.

Summary

Members of the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) challenged a dress code issued by the Additional Director General of Military Nursing Services, alleging violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitions were filed in various High Courts, some of which dismissed them on the ground that uniform prescription is a military matter, while others admitted them. The Supreme Court transferred all writ petitions, allowed a review committee to examine the objections, and heard the matter. The Court held that IMNS, though an auxiliary force, constitutes a separate class and that the power to prescribe uniform lies exclusively with the Chief of Army Staff under the Army Act, 1911 and the Indian Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943. Since the decision was not irrational and the review committee had considered the objections, there was no breach of Article 14, and no basis for Article 21. Consequently, all petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the dress code prescribed for IMNS violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the dress code violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the authority to prescribe uniform for IMNS lies within the competence of the Chief of Army Staff under the Army Act and the Indian Military Nursing Service Ordinance.

Legislation cited

Army Act, 1911
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 21
Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943s. Section 10, s. Section 11, s. Section 3, s. Section 6, s. Section 9

Subjects

UniformMilitary Nursing ServiceArticle 14Article 21Constitutional lawMilitary lawEqualityJudicial reviewDress codeIndian Army

Judgment

A
JASBIR KAUR AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 13, 2003
B
[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

T.C. (C) Nos. 39-42, 46, 54-56, 70/2002, S.L.P.(C) Nos. 12904-12909, 14275 G
and 14487 of 2002.

R. Venkataramani, M.N. Krishnamani, Sunil Jha, Ajay Kumar Jain, Ashok
Panigrahi, Ms. Abha and R. Sharma for the Petitioners.
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok K. Srivastava, M's.
Sushma Suri and B.V. Bairam Das for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SRIKRISHNA, J. The only issue thrown up by this group of cases is:
B What should be the uniform to be worn by members of the Military Nursing
Services? Persistence of parties and ingenuity of counsel have succeeded in
giving a constitutional moment to an issue which is but an one of administration
of an auxiliary branch of the Armed Services.

A force called Indian Military Nursing Service was constituted as part
C of the armed forces of the Union of India by Ordinance No.XXX of 1943, titled
The Indian Military Nursing Service Ordinance, 1943, which was brought into
force on 15th September, 1943. Section 3 of the said Ordinance declares that
there shall be raised and maintained in the manner provided in the Ordinance
"as part of the armed forces of the Union and for service with the Indian
D Military forces" an auxiliary force which shall be designated as Indian Military
Nursing Service. The Ordinance prescribes the conditions of eligibility for
appointment in section 6. Section 9 of the Ordinance provides that the
provisions of the Indian Army Act, 1911 shall, to such extent and subject to
such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed, apply to members
of the Indian Military Nursing Service as they apply to Indian commissioned
E officers, unless they are clearly inapplicable to women.

Section 10 of the said Ordinance empowers the Central Government to
make Rules to carry out the purposes of the ordinance and section 11 vests
in Tbe Chief of the Army Staff the power to make regulations providing for
all matters to be laid down and generally for all detail connected with the
F organisation, pay allowances, duties, discipline, training, clothing, equipment
and leave of members of the Indian Military Nursing Service.

In exercise of the powers vested in him The Chief of Army Staff
prescribed the appropriate uniform to be worn by the members of the Indian
G Military Nursing Service. The prescribed uniforms were changed from time to
time taking into account the advice of special committees appointed by The
Chief of the Army Staff to periodically review the issue.

Despite the fact that the Indian Military Nursing Service (hereinafter
called as 'IMNS') has been made an auxiliary force, the members of this
H service are not subject to all provisions of the Army Act and have been
JASBIR KAUR v. U.O.l. [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 519
treated separately while being part of the Indian Army. A
By an order dated 25.1. 2000 the Additional Director General of Military
Nursing Service issued a Dress Code for members of IMNS prescribing the
Dress Code for different purposes. We are not concerned with the details of
the prescribed uniforms for that in no way affects the legal issue sought to
be canvassed before the Court. Nor are we really concerned with the reasons B
which impelled the appropriate authority to prescribe any particular dress as
the uniform to be worn by the members of the IMNS. However, it appears that
a number of problems. Were faced in the hospital environment in the wake
of the dress code issued by the letter dated 25.1.200. These problems were
brought to the notice of Medical Services Advisory Committee. With an C
intent to solve these problems. Which pertained to patient care related issues,
a decision was taken to modify the dress code by an order issued on 1I.9 .200 I.
The said order was challenged by members of IMNS by different writ petitions
before several High Courts, inter alia, on grounds of violation of the
Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Bombay,
Allahabad and Karnataka High Courts dismissed such writ petitions on the D
ground that no issue pertaining to Fundamental Rights arose and observing
that the issue of prescribing uniform for the IMNS was a matter well within
the competence of the military authorities. Some other High Courts in the
meanwhile admitted similar writ positions and issued interim order. Special
leave petitions were moved against the decisions of the Allahabad. Bombay E
and Kamataka High Courts in this Court. To avoid inconsistency in judicial
decisions, this Court admitted the special leave petitions and also transferred
all the pending writ petitions to itself by an order made on 28.1.:. '.)02 in
Transfer Petition (c) Nos. 851-857 of2001, which reads as follows:

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. F
The writ petitions mentioned in prayer column of these petitions,
in our opinion, involves substantial question of law. Therefore, it is
just necessary this issue should be decided by a single court. Taking
into consideration the importance of the issue, we think it appropriate
that these petitions should stand transferred to this court for disposal G
in accordance with law. It is so transferred.

It is pointed out that some of the High Courts have issued interim
orders in favour of the petitioners. !fit is so, those interim orders will
continue until further orders of this Court.
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The writ petitions stand
transferred to this Court.

Liberty to file additional documents."

When these petitions came up for hearing on 6th May, 2002 it was
B represented to this Court that the Union of India wanted to appoint a Review
Committee to consider the question of uniform to be worn by the nurses in
the Army. This Court made the following order:

"Upon hearing counsels the Court made the following order:

There shall be an interim order maintaining status quo in regard
c to the uniform of Nurses concerned in these petitions. Uniform they
r
are wearing as on today shall be continued to be worn. If by virtue
of interim orders of the High Court or otherwise at different places
different uniforms are being worn, same shall continue till the disposal
of these petitions.
D
List these matters for final disposal in the month of September
2002. In the mean time ifthe Union of India wants to appoint a review
committee to consider the question of uniform to be worn by the
Nurses in the Army, they are free to do so and report to this Court."

E The Union of India thereafter constituted a Committee know as 'Military
Nursing Service Dress Review Committee' which was composed of the Director
General of Medical Services (Army), as the Chairman, and representatives
from the Director General of Armed Forces Medical Service, representative
from DGMS (Army), representative from DGMS (Navy), representative from
DGMS (Air Forces), Dy. Judge Advocate General and ADG Military Nursing
F service as members. The terms of reference of this Committee were the
following:

"Terms of Reference

I. To carry out a comprehensive review of the MNS Dress Code from
G its inception to the present dress code as promulgated vide army HQ
letter Nos.

(a) B/70001/DGMS-4Adt. 25Jan 2000

(b) B/42706/AGREEMENT/CW-I dated 11 September2001 as amended
vide our letter No. B/42706/AGREEMENT/CW-1 dated 25 October
H
JASBIR KAUR v. U.0.1. [SRIKRISHNA, J.) 521
2001. A
2. To Ascertain and deliberate upon various issues raised by MNS
against the existing dress code so promulgated and analyse the cause
of objection to the same including the issue of dress violations.

3. To go into all the issues involved and suggest a dress code, B
whether it be the existing dress duly modified, or a new dress code.
The dress code so recommended should be befitting, serve functional
requirement and be in keeping with the ethos and requirement of the
Medical Services.

4. To ensure that the dress code so recommended facilitates the C
efficient discharge of the primary duty of the MNS staff which is of
patient care and efficient management of patient wards.

5. In consonance with the directions of the Court it is to be ensured
that there is a clear difference and distinction in tenns of dress between
the doctors and the nurses. D
6. To go into the universality of dresses as worn by nursing staff in
other major civil hospitals, para military hospitals and where possible
nursing staff of foreign annies to draw suitable parallels to help
evolve a befitting dress code.

7. While making its recommendations on the dress code the issue of
E
any expenditure and its financial implications thereto should be borne
in mind and recommendations made thereto.

8. The Committee will also lay down the channel of promulgation of
the new dress code including the recommended time frame for its F
implementation."

The Dress Review Committee held its deliberations on 8th and 9th July
2002 and made a report. Though Major General P.K. Sethi, Addi. DGMNS and
Brig.(Mrs.) Usha Sikdar, DDMNS Central Command, were members o!' the
committee, they expressed their reservations with regard to the report and G
gave dissenting notes.

The Dress Review Committee went into the historical background of the
constitution of the Military Nursing Service an a separate cadre, the applicable
dress regulations for the different services and the problems faced in the
hospital environment, which were brought to its notice. It also took into H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A account a number of objections made by the IMNS questioning the rationality
and validity of the I Ith September 2000 order. The Dress Review Committee
meticulously considered the objections and having considered various options
found in favour of the Safari Suit of soothing colour (Beige colour) in suitable
fabric with badges of rank on shoulRrs to meet the seasonable requirements
B of summer and winter, as the best available option. It also recommended that
the change over should be effected within a time frame of three months and
that the cost of the recommended dress should be borne by the Government
as one time measure in the form of an outfit allowance by obtaining necessary
sanction from the competent authority.

C A copy of the Dress Review Committee report has been placed on the
record before us and learned counsel have taken us through it.

Learned counsel, Mr. R. Venkataramani and Mr. M.N. Krishnamani,
appearing for petitioners in different cases, basically urge two contentions.
They contend that the prescribed uniform violates Articles 14 and 21 of the
D Constitution. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel that there was
no question of Article 21 being considered unless they were able to
demonstrate that the prescribed uniform was outrageous of modesty and
dignity of womanhood or that it was so inconvenient as not to bear the
onslaughts of nature, both learned counsel did not press the contentions
based on Article 21. They however, contended that Article 14 was violated
E as the uniform was intended to discriminate against the members of the IMNS
by making them out to be a separate class.

In our view, the contention is entirely misconceived and unfounded.
That the Indian Military Nursing Service is a separate class, sui generis, even
F though an auxiliary force of the Indian Military, is an undeniable fact. The
historical background in which this force was established and the legal
provisi'ons 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
itself. In 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
G 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. We see no scope for application of Article
14 in such matters, nor is any case made out therefor.

A major grievance made on behalf of the petitioners was that no heed
H was paid to their objections before the Dress Code was finally decided. Even
JASBIR KAUR v. U.0.1. [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 523
if true, the contention has lost its force presently. When taken through the A
Dress Review Committee's Report by the learned Additional Solicitor General,
we noticed that the said 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.
B
Apart from affording an opportunity of putting forth their views in the
matter, the members of IMNS could not have asked for 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 before us can hardly be faulted unless C
on the ground of Wednesbury principle of rationality. In our view there is no
such irrationality in the decision of the Army Act which requires us to
interfere in exercise of our constitutional powers. The petitions have no merit
and are liable to fail.

The members of the IMNS have the glorious role model of the 'Lady D
with the Lamp', Florence Nightingale, who went around on the battle field,
caring more for the patients than for her own life. We hope that the shining
ex3!11ple of the Lady with the Lamp shall continue to be emulated by the
members of the Indian Military Nursing Service.

All the petitions dismissed. Interim orders vacated. The respondents are E
at liberty to take any appropriate decision.

There shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Petitions dismissed. F