LawChakra

Delhi High Court Questions Gender Bias in Military Nursing: If Women Can Serve in Siachen, Why Can’t Men Nurse?

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Delhi High Court recently questioned the gender-specific criteria for joining the Military Nursing Service, emphasizing that if women can be posted in challenging terrains like Siachen, there’s no reason why male nurses shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the Indian Army.

The court’s observation came in response to the Central government’s stance on the matter. Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that the government’s practices in the army are rooted in long-standing traditions. Bhati also mentioned that the government has recently introduced legislation to offer reservation to women. Responding to this, the Bench retorted,

“Yes, in parliament… On one hand you are talking about empowering women and on the other you are saying men cannot join as nurse… If a woman can be posted in Siachen, then a male can work in R&R.”

The court also pointed out that the Supreme Court has now allowed women to join the National Defence Academy and has consistently maintained that there should be no gender bias.

This discussion was prompted by a plea from the Indian Professional Nurses Association, which approached the High Court in 2018. The association challenged the rules stipulating that only women can join the Military Nursing Service. The petitioner argued against the stereotypical view that nursing is exclusively a women’s profession, a notion that dates back to times when only women trained as nurses. The association highlighted that numerous men are now trained and qualified in the nursing profession. They stated,

“That this discrimination in the Ordinance and the Rules is palpably contrary to the Constitutional scheme and is, therefore, ex-facie unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary. Gender equality under the impugned Ordinance and the Rules has remained an elusive Constitutional goal that the Legislature, since the inception of the impugned Ordinance and the Rules, has dispassionately ignored.”

The court’s observations underline the ongoing debate about gender roles and the need for equal opportunities in all professions, irrespective of gender.

Exit mobile version