LLM Notes: Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981) - IRAC Analysis

 Issue

The primary issue in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza was whether the service regulations imposed by Air India on female flight attendants (Air Hostesses) violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution. Specifically, the case challenged regulations that required air hostesses to retire at age 35, terminate their service upon marriage within four years of employment, or upon first pregnancy - conditions that did not apply to male flight attendants.

The petitioner Nargesh Meerza, an Air India flight attendant, contested these discriminatory workplace policies that forced women to resign based on gender-specific conditions while male employees faced no such restrictions.

Rule

The constitutional provisions at the center of this case were:

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws

• Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth

• Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment

The legal principle applied was that Article 14 prohibits hostile discrimination but permits reasonable classification. The Supreme Court established that when individuals who are equals or in similar circumstances are treated differently, it constitutes discrimination under Article 14, but treating individuals from different classes differently does not amount to discrimination.

Application/Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether Air Hostesses constituted a separate class from male Airline Flight Pursers (AFPs) and whether the differential treatment had reasonable justification. The Court determined that while Air Hostesses and AFPs were distinct classes with different service conditions, certain specific provisions within the regulations were manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.

Key findings

• Regulation 47: The provision allowing the Managing Director discretionary power to extend an Air Hostess's service was struck down as it could lead to discrimination between Air Hostesses and violated Article 14

• Regulation 46(i)(c): The clause terminating an Air Hostess's service "on first pregnancy" was declared unconstitutional and void as it interfered with a woman's fundamental right to have children and violated Article 14

• Retirement age disparity: The Court found that different retirement ages (35 for women vs. 58 for men) and marriage-based termination policies were based on stereotypical assumptions about women rather than job requirements

The Court emphasized that these policies were "an affront to the dignity of women" and that treating pregnancy as a disability was irrational. The regulations were deemed to perpetuate gender stereotyping and violate principles of workplace equality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, striking down the discriminatory provisions while upholding certain regulations that constituted reasonable classification. The Court:

• Invalidated the discretionary power of the Managing Director to extend service under Regulation 47

• Struck down the provision mandating termination upon first pregnancy in Regulation 46(i)(c).

• Upheld other service conditions that constituted reasonable classification between different employee categories

• Mandated automatic yearly extensions for Air Hostesses found medically fit, ensuring they could serve until age 45 without discriminatory treatment

This landmark judgment established that employment policies must have a rational nexus to job requirements rather than being based on gender stereotypes. The case became a cornerstone for advancing gender equality in Indian workplaces and set an important precedent against discriminatory employment practices based on sex.

Print Page