With the exception of one instance in which the Court discussed the issue in passing and subsequently upheld the constitutionality of adultery, the issue of sex discrimination under Article 15(1) has never been formally brought before the Supreme Court (the “SC”). As a result, the SC elevated the case of air india v nargesh meerza to the status of one of the earliest significant instances in the history of Indian equality law pertaining to sex discrimination.
air india v nargesh meerza Case Facts
- In a significant case in Indian legal history, air india v nargesh meerza contested gender-based discriminatory labour practices. The lawsuit arose against the backdrop of Air India’s regulations, which placed limitations on its female flight attendants.
- Nargesh Meerza, the petitioner, worked as an air hostess for air india Airlines. The rules that applied to female flight attendants at the time were that they had to quit if they got married, got pregnant for the first time, or turned 35, whichever came first. Similar regulations did not apply to male flight attendants.
- In 1980, Nargesh Meerza filed a writ suit in the Bombay High Court contesting these regulations. She argued that the regulations discriminated against women employees in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution and presented unjustified obstacles to them. Articles 14 and 15 forbid discriminations based on sex, caste, religion, race, or place of birth and ensure equality before the law. Opportunities for equality in public employment are guaranteed by Article 16.
- air india provided arguments for its discriminatory practices against women, including the possibility of joblessness during pregnancy, safety concerns, passenger expectations, as well as pregnancy-related flight anomalies. Meerza countered that these did not provide a fair division of labour between male and female employees.
- The case brought to light the pervasive gender stereotypes and bias that were then common in Indian organizations. Due to the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, Meerza’s legal challenge opened the door for examination of unfair employment practices.
air india v nargesh meerza Issues
- Is regulation 46 and 47 ultra vires in whole or in part because they violate Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution?
- Is it possible to argue that the discretionary powers listed in Regulation 47 constitute disproportionate delegation?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Discrimination based on Inter-Service: Air Hostesses serving on flights to the UK experienced different treatment than regular Air India passengers.
- Hostile Discrimination According to Sex or Disabilities Resulting from Sex: Air Hostesseshave been specifically chosen for discriminatory treatment on the basis of their sex or disabilities connected to sex, which violates the Constitution’s provisions in Articles 15(1) and 16(4).
- Unreasonable Termination: According to Article 14(5) of the Constitution, it was declared unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional to terminate an Air Hostesses’ services due to pregnancy or marriage within four years.
- Promotional Opportunities: Air Hostesses were not granted the same opportunities for advancement as male cabin crew workers.
Respondent:
- Sex-Based Recruitment: Since the hiring of Air Hostesses is impacted by a number of other factors in addition to sexual orientation, Article 15(2) of the Constitution does not apply.
- Validity of Regulations: The Khosla and Mahesh Awards have supported the statutory force, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory nature of IAC Regulation 12 and Regulation 46 of the AI Regulations.
- Reasonable Restrictions: Considering the current state of affairs in India, the ban on marriage and pregnancy is regarded as a reasonable restriction serving the public good.
- Practical Difficulties: Eliminating the prohibition on getting married or pregnant would present serious practical challenges and cost the Corporations a lot of money to make the required accommodations.
air india v nargesh meerza Judgment
- Invalidation of Specific Regulations: The air india Employees Service regulations 46 and 47 were ruled to be illegal by the court. In particular, it was decided that both the clause requiring termination after the first pregnancy and the clause permitting the Managing Director to prolong the employment of Air Hostesses were unconstitutional.
- Discriminatory Provisions: The court decided that the offensive provisions could be kept apart from the remainder of the regulations, even if it invalidated some sections of the regulations. As a result, the regulations as a whole were upheld.
- Clarification of Discrimination and Classification: In accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution, the court made clarifications about the fundamentals of discrimination and classification. It emphasized that appropriate classification based on acceptable criteria is acceptable, but discrimination against equals in identical situations is illegal.
- Discretionary Powers and Undue transfer: The court brought up issues with the Managing Director’s unrestrained discretion under Regulation 47, emphasizing the possibility of undue transfer of power. It emphasized that when granting discretionary authority, certain rules must be followed.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
