Similarity Report

PAPER NAME AUTHOR

Vrushabh Shah-A026- Case Comment (L Vrushabh Shah

aw related to women and children) .docx

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

1490 Words 7607 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

6 Pages 32.9KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Mar 29, 2024 9:24 PM GMT+5:30 Mar 29, 2024 9:24 PM GMT+5:30

7% Overall Similarity
The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
7% Internet database 0% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
0% Submitted Works database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Quoted material Cited material
Small Matches (Less then 20 words) Manually excluded text blocks

Summary
 Vrushabh Shah- A026

Law Related to Women and Children

ASSIGNMENT

Case Comment

AIR INDIA V NARGESH MEERZA AND ORS

Submitted by:
Vrushabh Shah- A026- 51001190060

Submitted to:
Kavita Sharma

Semester X
Vth Year- B.L.S./LL.B

Date of Submission: 30/03/2024

1
 Vrushabh Shah- A026

CASE COMMENT

Petitioner: AIR INDIA

Respondents: NARGESH MEERZA AND ORS
Bench: Syed Murtaza Fazalali, A. Varadarajan, A.P. Sen
Citation: 1981 (4) SCC 335
Decided on: 28/08/1981

ABSTRACT
Air India v Nargesh Meerza is considered as one of the very important case laws in
1
highlighting the struggles women face at workplaces to claim their rights and equality. In this
case two regulations of Air India service regulations were contended. These regulations i.e. 46
and 47 were contended on the grounds that these regulations were violative of Art. 14, 15 and
16. Moreover through this research paper, I aim to have a through narrative developed over
understanding the limitations of this judgement given by Supreme Court and reason for its
criticism.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

This case was with reference to contending Regulations 46 and 47 of Air India Service
1
regulations on the grounds that they created inequality between the male and female crew
members. Both the regulations which were contended were discriminatory on various grounds
including different ages of retirement for female and male cabin crew, different payment and
promotional avenues, and different conditions with reference to termination of Air hostess.
The major issue in this case was that the age of retirement for men was defined as 58 years and
for women the same was 35 years, with an additional clause that stated that female crew had to
retire on grounds of marriage or pregnancy. In addition to all these issues Regulation 47 gave
the managing director discretionary power for increasing the retirement age at his discretion.

Page 2 of 5
 Vrushabh Shah- A026

RULE OF LAW

ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

“Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”

ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, and place of birth or any of them.”

ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

“Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment”

“Article 16(1): There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of
employment under the State.”

REGULATION 46 AIR INDIA EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS

“Retiring Age:

Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (ii) hereof an employee shall retire from the
service of the Corporation upon attaining the age of 58 years, except in the following cases
when he/she shall retire earlier:

c) An Air Hostess, upon attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage if it takes place within
four years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier.”

REGULATION 47 OF AIR INDIA EMPLOYEE'S SERVICE REGULATIONS

“Extension of Service”

“Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 46, the services of any employee, may,
at the option of the Managing Director but on the employee being found medically fit, be
extended by one year at a time beyond the age of retirement for an aggregate period not
exceeding two years, except in the case of Air Hostesses and Receptionists where the period
will be ten years and five years respectively.”

Page 3 of 5
 Vrushabh Shah- A026

ISSUES
2
 Whether clauses 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations
completely or partially violate the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14,15 and 16.

 Whether the use of discretionary powers listed in Regulation 47 used by the Managing
directors be viewed as an undue transfer of authority.”

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme court in its final verdict did not completely strike down both the provisions.
The SC partially struck down clause 46 related to retirement age criteria for male and female
cabin crew and completely struck down regulation 47 which gave the managing director
unilateral powers to create different age of retirement for different people. The court held
that the clause regarding pregnancy was unconstitutional and therefore was ordered to be
struck down whereas the marriage criteria was not ordered to be struck down as the court
considered the same to be constitutionally valid. The Court also recommended to amend the
pregnancy clause and change the retirement criteria from first pregnancy to third pregnancy.
This Court was also of the opinion that regulation 47 was unconstitutional and suffered and
was plagued with excessive delegation of power.

ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

Following the landmark case of Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, a series of legal battles
ensued, aiming to revisit the judgment rendered in 1982. One notable case, "Lena Khan V.
Union Of India" in 1987, contended that discriminatory practices only affected Indian
employees of Air India, not those from other nations. Despite this argument, the 1982
judgment remained largely intact. Subsequently, a parliamentary committee convened in
1989, recommending an increase in the retirement age for female cabin crew. However,
company pressure led to a modified directive granting discretion to Air India regarding
employment terms for women over 45 years old, later extended to 50 years in 1993.

In the case of "Air India Cabin Crew Association (AICCA) V. Yashaswanee Merchant" in
2003, the Bombay High Court initially deemed regulations discriminating against male and
female cabin crew as unconstitutional. Yet, this decision was later overturned, with the court
Page 4 of 5
 Vrushabh Shah- A026

justifying differing retirement ages based on service conditions rather than gender bias.

The culmination of this struggle occurred in "AICCA V. UNION OF INDIA" in 2012,

marking a significant victory for female air hostesses. Following a Supreme Court directive
to ensure gender equality, Air India revised its policies, aligning the flying age of female
cabin crew with their male counterparts. Consequently, female air hostesses reclaimed their
fundamental rights after a prolonged legal battle spanning three decades.

CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD

Despite progress in legislative reforms and corporate initiatives, challenges persist in

achieving full gender equality in the workplace. Deep-rooted stereotypes, cultural norms, and
unconscious biases continue to hinder women's advancement in various industries and sectors.
Addressing systemic barriers requires concerted efforts from policymakers, employers, civil
society, and individuals alike.

Furthermore, inter sectional issues such as caste, class, and disability compound the
challenges faced by marginalized women in accessing opportunities and realizing their full
potential. Intersectional approaches that recognize and address the intersecting forms of
discrimination are essential for promoting inclusive workplaces and ensuring equal
opportunities for all.

While the judgment in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza laid the groundwork for challenging
discriminatory practices, the journey towards gender equality is ongoing and requires
sustained commitment and action from all stakeholders. By upholding the principles of
equality, non-discrimination, and inclusivity, we can create workplaces that are fair, equitable,
and conducive to the advancement of all individuals, irrespective of gender or identity.

CONCLUSION

The dire amount of time it took for women to get basic rights such as equality at workplace
even when such principals are particularly enshrined in the Indian constitution is astonishing.
This case highlights a long struggle to achieve basic principles of equality. This case even
though it held certain provisions of AIR India as unconstitutional, it supported and upheld the
Page 5 of 5
 Vrushabh Shah- A026

discrimination between female and male cabin crew. It upheld the thought process that men
and women belong to different cadres and there can be distinct set of rules governing them
irrespective of the fact that they belong to the same course of employment and same role. I
still firmly believe that the court upholding the clause of marriage restraint on women cabin
crew was bad in law and violative of Art 14,15 and 16. Even till date in many private as well
as government institutions such discrimination is present on the face of it, many women are
also forced to quit their jobs and careers due to such regulations being in place.

REFERENCES

1. Air India etc. v. Nargesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335 : (1982) 1 SCR 438:
(AIR 1981 SC 1829)

2. Lena Khan v. Union of India, (1987) 2 SCC 402

3. https://www.academia.edu/92522452/A_feminist_rewriting_of_Air_India_v_Nerg
esh_Meerza_AIR_1981_SC_1829_proposal_for_a_test_of_discrimination_under_
Article_15_1_
4. https://lawbhoomi.com/air-india-v-nargesh-meerza/

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .

………

Page 6 of 5
 Similarity Report

7% Overall Similarity
Top sources found in the following databases:
7% Internet database 0% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
0% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

jlrjs.com
1 4%
Internet

legalvidhiya.com
2 3%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report

Excluded from Similarity Report

Quoted material Cited material
Small Matches (Less then 20 words) Manually excluded text blocks

EXCLUDED TEXT BLOCKS

RULE OF LAWARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

jlrjs.com

A_feminist_rewriting_of_Air_India_v
The WB National University of Juridical Sciences on 2024-03-01

Excluded from Similarity Report