Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Air India Is Not Part Of State, Dismisses Petition

FacebookFacebookTwitterTwitterEmailEmailWhatsAppWhatsAppLinkedInLinkedInShareShare

The Supreme Court’s ruling states that Air India, post-disinvestment, is no longer considered a state entity, thereby barring the allowance of any fundamental rights violation case.

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the word “state.” It defines it as “the state,” which includes the government and parliament of India, the government and legislature of each of the states, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India.

This definition covers the executive and legislative branches of both the Union and each state in India, as well as all local or other authorities under the governance or supervision of the Indian government within Indian territory.

The Facts of the Case

This case before the Supreme Court was an appeal where the plaintiffs contested the ruling of the Bombay High Court, which echoed the same stance as the Apex Court.

The Bombay High Court’s verdict stated that while the petitions were initially considered within its jurisdiction, Air India’s privatization removed the court’s authority to issue writs, orders, or directives to the company.

In the petition filed before the Bombay High Court, certain employees of Air India Limited raised concerns over issues such as pay stagnation, a lack of employee promotions, and delays in the disbursement of wage revision arrears, among other grievances.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, concluded that the writ petition is not maintainable because “Air India” no longer falls within the definition of “state” as outlined in Article 12, given that Air India ceased to be a government entity following its disinvestment.

“We do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in sustaining the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petitions preferred by the appellants and rejecting the same as being not maintainable. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs,” the Apex Court concluded.

Read More: Supreme CourtDelhi High CourtStates High CourtOther CourtsInternational

Hemansh Tandon

Recent Posts

Kerala HC Refuses To Grant Relief To Lawyer Accused Of Raping Minor

The Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Noushad, a lawyer accused of sexually…

22 hours ago

Supreme Court to Hear Petitions on Rohingya Refugees’ Deportation and Living Conditions on May 8

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on May 8 for a set of petitions…

1 day ago

Advocates’ Association of Bengaluru to Address Judicial Corruption in Special Meeting

The Advocates' Association of Bengaluru (AAB) has called for a special general body meeting on…

1 day ago

Terror Funding Case: Delhi Court Junks Engineer Rashid’s Bail Plea

A Delhi court on Friday rejected the bail application of Lok Sabha MP from Jammu…

2 days ago

Bombay High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment Findings Against Bank Employee

The Bombay High Court has overturned an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report and a subsequent…

2 days ago

Honey-Trap Scandal: Opposition BJP Members Stage Dharna In K’taka Legislative Assembly Seeking Judicial Probe

The members of the opposition BJP on Friday staged a protest in the Karnataka Legislative…

2 days ago