Live Bihar Judiciary 2026 mock series · 50 free questions Start now
Constitution of India · Articles 14, 15 and 16; Air India and Indian Airlines Service Regulations

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza

A service regulation terminating an air hostess's employment on first pregnancy is arbitrary and unconstitutional; differential retirement/marriage conditions tied to sex offend Article 14.

Citation
(1981) 4 SCC 335
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
1981-08-28
Bench
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan, A.N. Sen JJ.

Facts

Service regulations of Air India and Indian Airlines required air hostesses to retire at 35 (extendable, in the managing director's discretion, to 45) and to leave service on marriage within four years or on first pregnancy, whereas comparable male cabin crew (assistant flight pursers) retired at 58. The regulations were challenged as discriminatory.

Issues

  • Whether air hostesses and other cabin crew formed a single class so that differential service conditions violated Article 14/16.
  • Whether termination on pregnancy and the unguided discretion to extend retirement age were arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Arguments

The air hostesses argued the conditions were sex discrimination dressed up in other garb and were arbitrary. Air India argued air hostesses formed a distinct cadre with separate recruitment and conditions, so the classification was reasonable.

Held

The Court accepted that air hostesses formed a separate cadre, so differing conditions per se did not offend Article 14. But it struck down the bar on continuing service after first pregnancy as arbitrary, 'extremely detestable and abhorrent to the notions of civilised society' and an unreasonable condition. The discretion to extend retirement age 'at the option' of the managing director without guidelines was held to confer uncanalised power and was also bad. The Court thus applied both the classification test and the arbitrariness test.

Ratio decidendi

Even within a validly classified cadre, a service condition that is arbitrary, unreasonable or confers unguided discretion violates Article 14; termination of employment on pregnancy is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Significance

A leading application of the dual Article 14 framework — classification plus arbitrariness — to service regulations, and an early, much-cited check on arbitrary employment conditions affecting women. Commentators note the Court conflated unreasonableness with arbitrariness, illustrating the doctrinal tension between the old and new tests.

Related

Reasonable classification within service cadresArbitrariness doctrineUnguided/uncanalised discretionSex discrimination (Articles 15 and 16)

Test yourself on Constitution of India. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.

Take a subject test →

Source: /Users/tiwari/Documents/All Law Books/raw/Oxform Constitution Commentary/CHAPTER-39-Equality-Article-14.md

Law Mock is an independent preparation resource and is not affiliated with any High Court, Public Service Commission, or government body. All exam information is sourced from official notifications and is updated periodically.