<p>On Thursday, the Supreme Court said that the State, while formulating its policy on Inter-Commissionerate transfers of its employees, including spouses, must consider the importance of protecting family life, keeping in mind the dignity and privacy of a person.<br /><br />Inter-Commissionerate transfers refer to inter-zonal transfers of government employees. Transfers for personal reasons are allowed to those who have completed two years of probation and have given an undertaking that they will not claim seniority in the new zone. <br /> <br />"How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State," said a bench presided over by Justice D Y Chandrachud. "In crafting its policy, however, the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21 of the Constitution."<br /><br />The bench, referring to systemic gender discrimination at the workplace, said the government should create policies that offer substantive equality of opportunity to women.<br /><br />The top court said such policies have to fulfil the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and balancing the values that underlie a decision-making process informed by constitutional values.<br /><br />It, however, upheld a Kerala High Court decision, which said that the withdrawal of a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on Inter-Commissionerate Transfers is not invalid as this would violate the unique identity of each cadre.<br /><br />"While we uphold the judgment of the High Court, we leave it open to the respondents (the Union government) to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds," the bench said.<br /><br />The bench pointed out that while the court cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy, the legitimacy of a policy can be assessed on the touchstone of constitutional parameters.<br /><br />"Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected," it added.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>On Thursday, the Supreme Court said that the State, while formulating its policy on Inter-Commissionerate transfers of its employees, including spouses, must consider the importance of protecting family life, keeping in mind the dignity and privacy of a person.<br /><br />Inter-Commissionerate transfers refer to inter-zonal transfers of government employees. Transfers for personal reasons are allowed to those who have completed two years of probation and have given an undertaking that they will not claim seniority in the new zone. <br /> <br />"How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State," said a bench presided over by Justice D Y Chandrachud. "In crafting its policy, however, the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21 of the Constitution."<br /><br />The bench, referring to systemic gender discrimination at the workplace, said the government should create policies that offer substantive equality of opportunity to women.<br /><br />The top court said such policies have to fulfil the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity, and balancing the values that underlie a decision-making process informed by constitutional values.<br /><br />It, however, upheld a Kerala High Court decision, which said that the withdrawal of a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on Inter-Commissionerate Transfers is not invalid as this would violate the unique identity of each cadre.<br /><br />"While we uphold the judgment of the High Court, we leave it open to the respondents (the Union government) to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds," the bench said.<br /><br />The bench pointed out that while the court cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy, the legitimacy of a policy can be assessed on the touchstone of constitutional parameters.<br /><br />"Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected," it added.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
