Republic Day: 6 Pathbreaking SC Rulings for Women's Empowerment

By: WE Staff

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)

The State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas's (1976) judgment reshaped India’s understanding of equality in public employment. The Supreme Court ruled that true equality under the Constitution goes beyond formal sameness and permits affirmative action to address historical disadvantage. Upholding Kerala’s policy that temporarily exempted Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees from departmental tests for promotion, the Court held that such measures advance substantive equality rather than violate it. By interpreting equality of opportunity alongside provisions for social justice, the verdict recognised reasonable classification as a tool for inclusion. This landmark decision established that reservations and supportive policies are constitutional instruments to ensure fair representation without undermining administrative efficiency.

Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza & Ors. (1981)

The Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) judgment exposed discriminatory service rules that required air hostesses to retire at 35 years, or earlier upon marriage within four years of service, or on their first pregnancy, while male flight pursers retired at 58 years. The Supreme Court struck down the marriage and pregnancy clauses as unconstitutional and arbitrary, affirming women’s right to dignity and equality at work. Although the Court initially upheld different retirement ages based on job roles, later rulings, especially in 2003, corrected this imbalance. Post-judgment reforms eventually aligned the retirement age of female cabin crew with that of men at 58 years, subject to medical fitness, setting a strong precedent for gender-equal employment policies.

Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982)

The Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) verdict transformed the principle of “equal pay for equal work” into an enforceable constitutional standard. The Supreme Court ruled that government employees performing the same duties cannot be paid differently without a valid and rational justification. The case arose when a Delhi Police driver was paid less than drivers in other government departments despite similar responsibilities. By reading the Directive Principle on equal pay alongside the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity, the Court struck down arbitrary pay disparities. This judgment empowered workers, especially women in public employment, to challenge discriminatory wage structures and reinforced fairness in state pay policies.