Published on: 19th October 2025
Authored by: Aishwarya Raosaheb Chakor
Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune
1.Citation-
Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc
Date of Judgment: 28 August 1981
Bench: Justice D.A. Desai, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy
Court: Supreme Court of India
2.Background of the Case –
This case is a milestone in the development of gender equality and employment law in India, particularly concerning the rights of female employees in public sector undertakings. It dealt with discriminatory employment conditions imposed upon Air Hostesses (female cabin crew) by the national airline, Air India, and Indian Airlines, and how such conditions conflicted with the constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity of women.
3.Facts of the Case-
3.1. The Petitioners:
A group of Air Hostesses working with Air India and Indian Airlines, led by Nergesh Meerza, challenged certain service conditions imposed on them.
3.2. The Respondents:
The Air Hostesses contended that the following provisions in their Air Hostess Regulations (AHR) were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of their fundamental rights:
Termination on marriage within four years of service.
Termination upon first pregnancy, regardless of health or performance.
Retirement age being 35 years, extendable up to 45 at management’s discretion, as opposed to 58 years for male Flight Pursers.
The lack of promotional opportunities compared to their male counterparts.
3.3. Service Conditions under Challenge:
The Air India (Flight Services) Regulations, 1967 and similar rules from Indian Airlines were at the core of the dispute.
Regulation 46 of Air India stated that the service of an Air Hostess shall be terminated:
On her first pregnancy.
If she gets married within four years of joining.
On attaining the age of 35 years, with discretion to extend up to 45.
4.Issues Raised Before the Court
- Whether the termination of an Air Hostess upon marriage within four years of joining is violative of Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (non-discrimination)
- Whether the provision for automatic termination on first pregnancy violates fundamental rights under Article 14, 15, and 16 (equal opportunity in employment)?
- Whether fixing a lower retirement age for Air Hostesses compared to male Flight Pursers is discriminatory and unconstitutional?
- Whether Air India’s justification of “service efficiency” and “passenger preference” constitutes a reasonable classification under Article 14?
- Whether such provisions violate the right to personal liberty and dignity under Article 21?
5.Arguments by Petitioners-
The regulations amounted to gender discrimination and violated their fundamental rights.
Termination upon marriage or pregnancy denied a woman her basic right to family and motherhood.
Male Flight Pursers and female Air Hostesses perform similar duties, yet disparities in retirement age, promotion, and service conditions were apparent.
The service rules were arbitrary, unfair, and violative of the principles of natural justice.
They relied on the doctrine of equality before the law (Article 14) and the constitutional prohibition against gender discrimination (Article 15(1)).
6.Arguments by Respondents (Air India & Indian Airlines)-
The job of an Air Hostess required youth, glamour, and physical fitness, and these conditions were framed to preserve that image.
The restrictions were based on “reasonable classification” and intended to ensure operational efficiency, safety, and a pleasant experience for passengers.
Management argued that pregnancy would impact the performance and safety of the Air Hostess and the passengers.
The lower retirement age was justified by passenger preferences and commercial viability.
They contended that the service was voluntary, and women joining were aware of these conditions.
7. Judgment-
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment with nuanced observations and a partial acceptance of the petitioners’ claims.
7.1. Marriage Rule (struck down):
The court held that the rule requiring Air Hostesses to remain unmarried for four years was unconstitutional.
It violated Article 14 and Article 15 as it arbitrarily interfered with personal liberty and right to family life.
The Court observed:
> “Marriage is a social institution which is a matter of personal choice and liberty. Imposing a bar on it is not only discriminatory but also violative of basic human dignity.”
7.2. Pregnancy Rule (struck down):
The provision that terminated service upon first pregnancy was held to be manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
The Court observed:
“Motherhood is not a disability; it is a natural biological function and cannot be a ground for disentitlement from employment.”
It was declared that such a condition violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 and offends the right to privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy.
7.3. Retirement Age:
The Court upheld the retirement age of 35 years for Air Hostesses with the possibility of extension up to 45 years.
The Court reasoned that:
There exists a rational classification based on nature of duties, appearance, and passenger expectations.
However, it criticized the vagueness of “aesthetic appeal” and suggested better uniformity in standards for retirement.
But the differential treatment between male Flight Pursers and female Air Hostesses was not fully addressed, which drew criticism later.
7.4. Promotion Rules:
The Court directed that promotional avenues must be available for Air Hostesses similar to their male counterparts.
Lack of promotional opportunity was deemed as institutional discrimination
8.Key Observations by the Court-
Equality is not formal but substantive – rules must not only appear equal but also be fair in impact.
Discrimination can be indirect – even facially neutral rules may be discriminatory if they disproportionately affect a gender.
Women’s rights must be protected within the workplace, and employment terms must reflect constitutional values, not societal stereotypes.
Employment conditions cannot impose unfair burdens on women for choosing family life.
9.Impact of the Judgment-
9.1. Landmark in Women’s Rights Jurisprudence:
The judgment strengthened the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 in favor of gender justice.
It reinforced that pregnancy or marriage cannot be grounds for exclusion from employment, setting a precedent for future cases.
9.2. Reforms in Service Rules:
Following the verdict, Air India and Indian Airlines revised service rules related to termination, retirement age, and promotions for Air Hostesses.
It prompted public sector undertakings to reconsider regressive employment policies affecting women.
9.3. Influence on Later Judgments:
This case was cited in subsequent cases like:
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – for ensuring workplace dignity of women.
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) – where Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting women from working in bars, emphasizing substantive equality.
9.4. Global Resonance:
The judgment echoed global movements for anti-discrimination in aviation. Airlines worldwide had historically imposed similar sexist policies, and this judgment contributed to the progressive wave of reforms.
10. Criticism of the Judgment:
While the verdict was progressive in striking down the marriage and pregnancy clauses, it received criticism for:
Upholding the retirement age disparity without strong reasoning.
Relying on subjective factors like “aesthetic appearance” and “passenger comfort”.
Not addressing deep-rooted gender stereotypes in sufficient depth.
