Air India v. Nargesh Meerza
Rakshi Padhan
Vikash Law School, Odisha
This Case Commentary is written by Rakshi Padhan, a Law Graduate of Vikash Law School, Odisha
CASE DETAILS:
Court- Supreme Court of India
Equivalent citation- AIR 1981 SC 1829
Bench - Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice R. S. Pathak, and Justice A. Varadarajan
Decided on – August 7, 1981
Case type – Civil Appeal
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Air India
Respondents: Nargesh Meerza and other Air India air hostesses.
INTRODUCTION:
Though today’s world is progressing toward modernization and digitalization, still it struggles to maintain equality. Notwithstanding this progress, discrimination arises from diverse factors like sex, gender, language, place of residence, income, and many more. In the Indian legal landscape, the milestone case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza portrays the complex concept of prejudiced and biased gender policies in the workplace. This is marked as a landmark case that relates to sex discrimination. Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed this societal barrier in this case.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case revolve around the Regulations given under the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963. Regulation 46 states that an air hostess needs to retire from the service on attainment of 35 years of age or if she is married within four years of joining the service or on her first pregnancy. Similarly under Regulation 47 it is provided that the age of retirement of the air hostess can be extended at the discretion of the Managing Director by one year if she is found medically fit. These regulations formulated a considerable degree of discrepancy between males and females because the male employees (Air Flight Pursers) were allowed to work until the age of 58 without any such restrictions. The petitioner argued that this perspective of the regulation is arbitrary and against the principle of equality under Sections 14, 15, and 16.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT:
A. the Regulations 46 & 47 of Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 in contravention of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution?
B. Whether discretionary powers are given to the Managing Director to extend the service of Air hostesses as enumerated under Regulation 47 can be deemed as being excessive delegation of authority.
C. Whether the discrimination in services between the male and female was justified as a reasonable classification under Article 14?
ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONERS:
1. Against the Provision of Articles 14, 15, And 16 of the Indian Constitution:
The Regulations 46 and 47 of Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 were violative of the Fundamental Rights of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution, hindering equality and equal opportunity in employment without any reasonable justification.
2. Termination of Job on pregnancy:
As per the Regulation, the air hostesses need to be retired or terminated on their first pregnancy and it is unconstitutional because pregnancy is a natural consequence of marriage and it violates the personal liberty (Article-21) of women.
3. Unreasonable marital justification:
This regulation under Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 arbitrarily prohibits the air hostesses from marrying within the first four years of service. This imposed condition contravenes the right to marry as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
4. Unjust Age- Centric Discrimination:
The air hostesses were allowed to work until the age of 35 but it is 58 in the case of male pursers which showed unjust age-centric discrimination of retirement.
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:
1. Legitimate Classification:
The classification and differences in service rules between male pursers and female air hostesses are reasonable and part of legitimate classification guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. They contended that it is required for the air hostess to maintain a youthful and radiant demeanor and the classification is not arbitrary and essential for the Airline’s success.
2. Operational Efficiency:
Air India argued that the differential treatment between male pursers and female air hostesses was required for the maintenance of operational efficiency and safety. Imposing a retirement age is necessary to ensure that air hostess could perform their duties without interruption.
JUDGEMENT AND ITS ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court of India held that regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations, 1963 which direct that the termination of an air hostess upon her pregnancy or attainment of 35 years of age is arbitrary and unjust, and violative of Article 14,15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. As pregnancy is a consequence of marriage, this rule of prohibiting the air hostesses from marrying for the first four years of employment is against the Right to personal liberty and dignity of women as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
The verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India invalidates the Regulation relating to the pregnancy of Air hostesses. It acknowledged the right of women to achieve gender justice and balance their professional and family life. This judgment set a benchmark to curtail the arbitrary and unreasonable classification based on gender.
CONCLUSION:
This judgment of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza is a turning point in safeguarding women’s rights and strengthening the gender balance in the workplace. This unfair and unjust policy of termination is nullified to enhance the constitutional principles of equality, integrity, and non-discrimination.
REFERENCES:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1903603/
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/19157.pdf
https://lawbhoomi.com/air-india-v-nargesh-meerza/
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/air-india-v-nargesh-meerza-detailed-case-analysis/