Tattoo removal after medical exam not permissible, rules Calcutta High Court, junks plea of armed forces candidate

The Calcutta High Court has observed that removing tattoos after challenging the detailed medical examination report and prior to the review medical examination to be declared “fit” is “not permissible”, while dismissing the plea of an aspiring constable in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).

It was placed on record that a candidate who is declared medically unfit in the detailed medical examination is permitted to seek a review medical examination to challenge an alleged error or anomaly in the medical assessment.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya was hearing a plea filed by an aspiring constable, who removed his tattoo on December 6, 2025, before the review medical examination, after being declared medically unfit in the detailed medical examination conducted on December 3, 2025, on account of tattoos on his right forearm and right flat foot.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya found the conduct of the petitioner as “not countenanced”, pointing to his attempt to remove tattoos before the review medical examination. (Image is enhanced using AI)

The court pointed out that the petitioner’s health condition, including the existence of tattoo marks, must be assessed with reference to the situation existing on the date of the detailed medical examination, which was conducted on December 3, 2025.

“If there is an anomaly in the Detailed Medical Examination candidate has the right to prefer 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 added.

Stating that the conduct of the petitioner was “not countenanced”, the court, in its January 2 order, found that the petitioner had tattoos on December 3, 2025, on the day of the detailed medical examination, but he attempted to remove those tattoos before the review medical examination after preferring a review and questioning the detailed medical examination report.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Debasish Kundu argued that his client should be declared medically fit in the review medical examination since he has removed tattoos from two parts of his body.

The state, represented by advocate Ram Chandra Agarwal, opposed this plea and submitted that his tattoo was removed on December 6, 2025, whereas the detailed medical examination was conducted on December 3, 2025.

In a separate case, the Delhi High Court had previously ruled that if any candidate has a tattoo on his/her forearm and is entering the selection process of any force, including the Delhi Police, and if that tattoo is objectionable to the concerned authority, then an opportunity is always granted to such a candidate to get it removed in a time-bound manner.

“If he or she still does not get it removed, his or her candidature is liable to be rejected,” the court added while hearing the plea of an aspiring Delhi police constable who aspired to join the Delhi Police but was rejected because of impermissible tattoos on the right forearm, which is considered the saluting arm.

The aspiring constable, in this case, Deepak Yadav, was declared medically unfit on the date of his medical examination because of his “faded tattoo” on his right forearm. He sought a medical review medical examination, but was declared unfit again.

The high court ruled in favour of the aspiring constable in this case.