Air India v Nergesh Meerza & Ors 1981 AIR 1829

Facts:
This case challenged the Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service
Regulations. The aforementioned regulations created a disparity between male (Air Flight
Pursers) and female (air hostess) on various grounds such as promotional avenues, different
retirement ages, conditions pertaining to termination of the Air hostesses’ services in cases of
pregnancy or marriage.

Issues:
(i) Whether Regulation 46 & 47 are violative of Articles 14,15, 16 of the Constitution of
India and thus ultra vires in whole or part?

(ii) Whether discretionary powers as enumerated under Regulation 47 can be deemed as

being excessive delegation?

Laws:
1: Article 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution of India

Analysis:
The court exclaimed that article 14 excludes only against hostile discrimination and not
against reasonable classification. To prove this the court relied on previous judgements it
basically told that that treating equal and unequal’s differently does not amount to hostile
discrimination. And hence the court told that it does not violate article 14. Court laid down
set of guidelines to assess whether the Air Hostesses and  Air Flight Pursuers are of separate
classes and by extension checking the supposed violation of Article 14 By assessing their
promotional avenues, starting salaries and entry level qualification they are deemed as two
distinct categories by the Court and thus the assertion of Article 14 being violated is rejected
on the basis of reasonable and intelligible differentia. Court states that while Article 16(2)
purports that no discrimination should be made only on the ground of sex, however it never
prohibits the state from discriminating on the grounds of sex and other considerations thus the
Court rejects the violation of Article 16.

The court for the second issue exclaimed that it is stated that by conferring unregulated and
unguided control to the managing director to grant an extension, the real intention of the
regulation makers is being defeated.   the words “at the option of”, grants more than sufficient
power to the managing director which could lead to possible cases of discriminatory practice.
Thus its clear that this regulation is violative of article 14 of the constitution.