BHARATI VIDYAPEETH'S

NEW LAW COLLEGE, KOLHAPUR Accredited by NACC with 'A'Grade

(Estd. 1982)
(Affiliated to Shivaji
University) Near Chitra Nagari,
Kolhapur

SUBMISSION FOR INTERNAL ASSESSSMENT IN THE

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF PRE LAW FIFTH YEAR

MOOT COURT, TRIAL

PREPARATIONS AND
PARTICIPATION IN TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Name of Student : Manthan Shrikant

Bhandigare Class : Pre Law Vth

Pre Law : Vth

Roll No. 4

Year : 2021-22

University PRN 2017112299

 BHARATI VIDYAPEETH'S
NEW LAW COLLEGE,
KOLHAPUR
MOOT COURT NO. 2
On the topic of : Equal protection of law

Submitted to : HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL

NEW LAW
COLLEGE
KOLHAPUR

Submitted By : Manthan Shrikant Bhandigare

DATED : 30/04/2022

University PRN 2017112299

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 BHARATI VIDYAPEETH'S
NEW LAW COLLEGE,
KOLHAPUR
MOOT COURT CASE NO. 1

INDEX
Sr.No. CONTENTS PAGE SIGNATURE/REMARK
NO.

1 Title of the Case

2 Statement of Jurisdiction

3 Statement of Facts

4 Issued raised

5 Arguments

6 Citations / Authorities

7 Prayer

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 Title of the Case

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NEW DELHI

Writ Petition No. – 1186 of 1980

Published In – 1982 SCR (1) 438
Hon’ble Judges/ Coram - Justice Fazalali and Justice Syed Murtaza,
Justice Varadarajan A. and Justice Sen

AIR INDIA ETC. ETC : APPELLANT

Vs.

NERGESH MEERZA & ORS :

RESPONDENT ETC. ETC

Memorial on behalf of APPELLANT

The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as under-

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 Statement of Jurisdiction

Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners raise
common constitutional and legal questions and we propose to decide all these cases by one
common judgment. So far as Transferred Case No. 3/81 is concerned, it arises out of writ
petition No. 1186/1980 filed by Nergesh Meerza and Ors. Respondent No. 1 (Air India)
moved this Court for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Nergesh Meerza &
Ors in the Bombay High Court to this Court because the constitutional validity of Regulation
46(1)(c) of Air India Employees Service Regulations and other questions of law were
involved. After hearing the transfer petition this Court by its Order dated 21.1.81 allowed the
petition and directed that the transfer petition arising out of writ petition No. 1186/80 pending
before the Bombay High Court be transferred to this Court. By a later Order dated 23.3.1981
this Court directed that the Transferred case may be heard along with other writ petitions.
Hence, all these matters have been placed before us for hearing.

So it is original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Article 32
1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by this Part.

Its exclusive original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of
India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on
one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as
the dispute involves any question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent
of a legal right depends. In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The case was result of regulation 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service
Regulation which created a significant amount of disparity between the pay and promotional
avenue of male and female in flight cabin crew.

It was brought forth that under regulation 46 while the retirement age for flight
purposes (male cabin crew) it was 58, and for the Air Hostesses (female cabin crew) were
required to retire under three circumstances:

1. Upon reaching 35 years of age.

2. Upon getting married, or
3. Upon first pregnancy.

This case went through different levels of litigation. The regulations were upheld in
the tribunal after observing factor such as “young and attractive” air hostess are necessary to
deal with temperamental passengers.

Thereafter the case reached upon Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of
the regulations.

LEGAL ASPECTS –

The case revolves around the interpretation of Regulations 46 and 47 of Air India Employees
Service Regulation. Along with Article 14, Article 15(1), Article 16 and Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution.

46. 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.

47. Extension of Service.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 46, the services of any employee,

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 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.

ARTICLE 14

The state shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of law
within territory of India.

ARTICLE 15(1)

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

ARTICLE 16(2)

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect
or, any employment or office under the State

ARTICLE 21

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to

a procedure established by law.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether Regulation 46 and 47 are violative of Art. 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution
of India?

2. Whether discretionary powers as enumerated under regulation 47 can be deemed as

being excessive delegation?

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT

1. Whether Regulation 46 and 47 are violative of Art. 14, 15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of
India?
- Yes

ARTICLE 14

The state shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of law
within territory of India.
Equal protection of law ensures all persons to have right to equal treatment in
similar circumstances both in privileges conferred and in liabilities imposed by law. It
emphasis that equal laws should be applied to all in same situation and that there
should be no discrimination between one person and another. Thus it means the
equals can be treated equally.

46. 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.

47. 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.

Case
IN Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in states action ensures fairness and equality
of treatment. So what is arbitrary is unequal and is violative of Article 14 of
constitution.
The employee shall retire from the service of the Corporation upon attaining
the age of 58 years, but in the case of women the age of retirement for women is 35
years or on marriage if it takes place within four years of service or on first
pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier.
Also, it is unfair to place marriage as disqualification of women but not on
men. The same cabin crew performing identical or similar duties and hence any
discrimination between these two members who are similarly circumstanced is clearly
violative if Art. 14 of Constitution of India.

ARTICLE 15(1)
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

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect
or, any employment or office under the State

So in this case there is discrimination solely on the basis of sex is violative to

the article 15(1) and article 16.

ARTICLE 21

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to

a procedure established by law.
Article 21 have wide scope, Right to have family is also come under the scope
of article 21 of Indian Constitution. So the provisions of Regulation 46 are violative
to the article 21 of Indian Constitution. The termination of services of Air Hostess on
pregnancy was not only a callous and cruel act but an open insult to Indian
womanhood.
Hence Respondent prays for too struck down the Regulation of retirement of
Air Hostesses on her pregnancy as arbitrary and unreasonable on this ground.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 2. Whether discretionary powers as enumerated under regulation 47 can be deemed as
being excessive delegation?
- Yes

Administrative authority may be authorized to exercise certain discretionary powers.

Case

In District Registrar Vs Canara Bank (2005 (1) SCC 496)

Court held an administrative discretion is subject to judicial review by court.

So if it exercised arbitrary without any guidelines, principles or norms then that has to
struck down being violative under Article 14

In said case also, no guidelines were provided there is a solely discretion

given to the manager.

47. 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.

Here solely discretion is given to the managing director of Air India Services.
The provision for extension of service of Air Hostess “at the option” of the
managing director conferred a discretionary power without laying down any
guidelines and principles and liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. Under the
Air India Regulation the extension of retirement of an Air Hostess was discriminatory
entirely at the mercy and sweet will of the managing director. The conferment of such
wide and uncontrolled power on managing director suffered from the vice of
excessive delegation of power.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. List of Statutes Referred

A. Constitution of India, 1949
B. Air India Employees Service Regulation

2. List of Referred Books

A. Constitutional of India by J. N. Pandey

3. Citations of referred cases

A. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
B. District Registrar Vs Canara Bank

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.

 Prayer

In the circumstances, petitioner most respectfully praises Hon’ble supreme court

may graciously pleased to:

1. To struck down the Regulation of Retirement of Air Hostess on her

pregnancy or on marriage if it takes place within four years of entering
the service.
2. Pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in facts
and circumstances of case.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent.