Air India v Nargesh Meerza
Air India Ltd. v. Nargesh Meerza (1981) AIR 1829, 1981 SCR (3) 1332
1. Background of the Case
Nargesh Meerza and other female air hostesses challenged Air India’s policy which required female air hostesses to retire on marriage or upon reaching the age of 35 years.
Male employees were allowed to continue their employment irrespective of marriage or age.
Female employees argued this policy was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex), and 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India.
Air India defended the policy by claiming it was necessary for the efficiency and image of the airline.
2. Legal Issues
Whether the policy of mandatory retirement of female air hostesses on marriage or at 35 years was discriminatory and violated constitutional rights.
Whether such a policy could be justified as an “exception” under Article 15(3), which allows special provisions for women.
3. Arguments
For the Petitioners (Female Air Hostesses):
The policy was arbitrary and violated the right to equality.
It discriminated solely on the basis of gender and marital status.
It adversely affected the economic independence and dignity of women.
For Air India:
The policy was based on the nature of the job which demanded youthfulness and physical fitness.
The policy was aimed at maintaining the company's image.
Article 15(3) allowed special provisions for women, so the policy was valid.
4. Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the Air India’s policy with the following reasoning:
The court observed that the nature of the job as an air hostess demanded certain standards of physical fitness and appearance.
The policy was a special provision under Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which permits the State to make special provisions for women.
The Court held that the policy was not discriminatory in a manner violative of Article 14 or 15(1), but rather a permissible classification.
It recognized the unique nature of the service and that the policy was for a specific purpose and was not arbitrary.
The court also emphasized that such policies are based on economic and social considerations and have a reasonable nexus to the nature of the service.
The judgment accepted that special conditions could be applied to women in employment if justified by the nature of the service.
5. Significance of the Case
The case is a leading authority on gender discrimination in employment.
It interpreted Article 15(3) as allowing reasonable and justifiable differentiation based on gender.
The judgment set a precedent that not all distinctions based on sex amount to unconstitutional discrimination; they can be valid if reasonable and related to the nature of the employment.
It showed the balancing act between equality and special protections for women in law.
6. Criticism and Later Developments
The case has been criticized for upholding gender stereotyping and limiting women's right to employment and career advancement.
It was seen as endorsing paternalistic and traditional views about women’s roles.
Subsequent judgments and amendments in labour laws have aimed to provide greater protection against gender discrimination.
The Equality jurisprudence in India has since evolved, and today many such policies would be scrutinized under stricter standards of equality.
7. Summary
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Citation | AIR 1981 SC 1829 |
| Issue | Validity of mandatory retirement of female air hostesses on marriage/age |
| Law Applied | Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16 of the Constitution of India |
| Judgment | Policy upheld as reasonable special provision under Article 15(3) |
| Reasoning | Based on nature of employment, not arbitrary discrimination |
| Significance | Allowed gender-based classification if reasonable and related to service nature |
RELATED Blog
0 comments