What did the Court decide about retirement and pregnancy rules?

The Supreme Court struck down the retirement-on-pregnancy and early retirement rules as unconstitutional.

Which constitutional rights were involved?

Articles 14, 15 and 16—equality before law, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity in public employment.

What happened to Regulation 47?

It was invalidated because it gave excessive, unguided powers—an instance of excessive delegation.

Why was this case important for gender equality at work?

It affirmed that rules singling out women for marriage or pregnancy cannot pass equality tests under the Constitution.

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (AIR 1981 SC 1829)

Quick Summary

This case tests workplace rules against equality rights. Air India’s Service Regulations forced air hostesses to retire on marriage, first pregnancy, or at 35. The Court held such rules unfair and illegal under the Constitution.

It also struck down a rule that gave wide, unguided powers to end service. The judgment protects dignity and equal opportunity for women in public employment.

Issues

Are Regulations 46 and 47 void for violating Articles 14, 15 and 16?
Can retirement on marriage or first pregnancy be justified in law?

Rules (Constitutional Standards)

Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of the laws.

Article 15(1): No discrimination on grounds of sex (among others).

Article 16: Equal opportunity in public employment.

Delegation Control: Service rules need clear guidance; wide, unguided powers are invalid.

Facts (Timeline Style)

Service Rules: Air hostesses faced retirement on marriage, first pregnancy, or at age 35—whichever came first.

Rationale Claimed: Airline stressed “youth” and “glamour” for inflight service; earlier there was talk of retirement at 50 with ground duties.

High Court Order: Proposed non-biased options on retirement ages for men and women, but staff groups feared harm to seniority and promotions.

Supreme Court: Employees challenged Regulations 46 & 47 for discrimination and excessive powers. The matter came up for final decision.

Timeline for Air India v. Nergesh Meerza

Arguments

Appellants (Employees)

Marriage/pregnancy rules target women and violate Articles 14, 15, 16.
Retirement at 35 is arbitrary and unrelated to job ability.
Reg. 47 gives unchecked powers to end service—no clear safeguards.

Respondents (Airline)

Inflight service needs specific standards; rules ensure uniform service quality.
Different retirement norms reflect operational needs, not discrimination.
Management needs flexibility for deployment and discipline.

Judgment

Judgment image

Held: The retirement-on-marriage and retirement-on-first-pregnancy clauses are unconstitutional. They fail equality tests and stereotype women.

Regulation 47: Struck down for excessive delegation—too much power with no clear guidance or checks.

The Court emphasised dignity, health, and equal career paths for women in public sector employment.

Judgment highlights of Air India v. Nergesh Meerza

Ratio Decidendi

Rules that single out women for marriage or pregnancy are hostile discrimination—hit by Arts. 14, 15, 16.
Employment regulations must relate to job performance, not stereotypes.
Administrative clauses need clear standards; unguided power is invalid.

Why It Matters

The ruling shields women from forced exit due to life choices like marriage or motherhood. It sets a clear message: equality at work is a constitutional promise.

Key Takeaways

Pregnancy/marriage exit rules are unconstitutional.

Equality protects real careers, not labels or image.

Delegation needs limits and guidance.

Public employers must justify different retirement norms.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: E-M-D — Equality • Motherhood • Don’t delegate blindly.

Equality check: Does the rule treat women worse?
Health & dignity: Does it punish pregnancy or marriage?
Power limit: Are there clear standards for action?

IRAC Outline

Issue: Are Regulations 46–47 valid under Arts. 14, 15, 16?

Rule: Equality clauses bar sex-based discrimination; delegated powers must be guided.

Application: Retirement on marriage/pregnancy targets women; Reg. 47 has no clear limits.

Conclusion: Clauses struck down; Reg. 47 invalid for excessive delegation.

Glossary

Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Article 15(1): No discrimination on grounds of sex, etc.
Article 16: Equal opportunity in public employment.
Excessive Delegation: When a rule gives very wide powers with no clear limits or guidance.