Air India v Nergesh Meerza (1981)

Human Rights Law · National Commission for Backward Classes

Facts.

Air India’s service rules made air hostesses retire on marriage within four years, on first pregnancy, or at a low age — terms far harsher than those for male cabin crew.

Issue.

Were these service conditions, especially termination on pregnancy, valid, or did they violate the right to equality?

Held.

The termination on pregnancy was struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. But the Court rejected the plea that the different retirement age was discrimination “on sex only” under Articles 15/16 and upheld the marriage bar and the retirement age.

Why it matters.

The authority for the recurring pregnancy-retirement problem — win it on Article 14 arbitrariness, and remember the Court did not accept the Articles 15/16 argument.

📄 Full Human Rights Law notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Human Rights Law topics