Judgement Briefs

Administrative Law

Air India v. Nargesh Meerza

AIR 1981 SC 1829

Citation
AIR 1981 SC 1829
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
28 August 1981
Bench
Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan and A.P. Sen, JJ.

Facts

  • Air India service regulations imposed special conditions on air hostesses.
  • Air hostesses could be retired on marriage, pregnancy, or at an earlier age.
  • These conditions did not apply in the same way to male employees.
  • The regulations were challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.

Issue

  • Whether service regulations discriminating against air hostesses were unconstitutional.

Rule

  • Subordinate legislation/service regulations must comply with the Constitution.
  • A rule can be struck down if it is arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
  • Administrative convenience cannot justify unfair gender-based treatment.
  • Conditions of service must satisfy Article 14.

Application

  • The Court examined whether the restrictions had a rational connection with service efficiency.
  • Some age-related service rules were treated with deference because airlines may impose physical fitness/service standards.
  • But the rule terminating employment on first pregnancy was held to be deeply unfair.
  • Pregnancy is not misconduct or incapacity.
  • Penalising a woman for pregnancy treated her biological condition as a disqualification.
  • The rule was unreasonable, arbitrary and offensive to dignity.
  • The Court also criticised wide discretionary power in the Managing Director to extend or deny service without proper guidelines.
  • Such unguided discretion can become arbitrary.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court struck down the pregnancy-based termination rule.
  • It held that subordinate regulations cannot violate equality and fairness.
  • Use this case for: delegated/service rules can be invalidated when they are arbitrary or unconstitutional.