Bombay High Court: All three writ petitions were filed by employees of Air India Ltd., seeking reliefs related to dismissal, promotion orders, and pension scheme benefits. Though the facts were distinct, the common employer and issue of maintainability led to the petitions being heard together. During pendency, Air India Ltd.’s status changed due to privatisation, raising questions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha A. Deshpande*, JJ., held that all the three writ petitions, although maintainable on the dates on which they were instituted, have ceased to be maintainable, due to privatisation of Air India Ltd. The Court emphasised that due to the change in the status of Air India Ltd., after its privatisation it had become a private entity and was not performing any public functions, therefore, it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and no writ could be issued against it.
Background:
In the first petition, Writ Petition No. 1876 of 2001, the petitioner joined Air India Ltd. in 1976 on a Scheduled Tribe post and was promoted over the years until his dismissal on 14-06-2000. In 1997, he was asked to submit a caste certificate in the prescribed format. The certificate dated 04-02-1998 was found to be bogus, and he was charged under Clause 19(2)(xi) of the Certified Standing Orders for an offence involving moral turpitude. Despite his defence citing a valid 1976 certificate issued by a Gazetted Officer, an Enquiry Committee was formed, and his services were terminated. Air India Ltd. contended the action was justified, not malafide, and aligned with mandatory verification requirements under the presidential order.
In the second petition, Writ Petition No. 809 of 2002, the grievance of the petitioners, who retired from Air India Ltd. prior to 01-04-1994, was regarding the cut-off date for implementation of the pension scheme, which they claimed created artificial discrimination. They relied on the Memorandum of Settlement dated 02-02-1979, which proposed a pension scheme effective from 01-04-1978. Air India Ltd. opposed the petition, stating the scheme was self-contributory, managed by a Trust not falling under Article 12 of the Constitution, and Air India Ltd. had no control or funding role beyond Rs 100 annually. The scheme was approved in April 1994 with a rider that Air India would not contribute further, and hence no discrimination could be attributed.
In the third petition, Writ Petition No. 1333 of 2002, the petitioner challenged the legality of promotion orders dated 06-08-2001 and 21-02-2002 issued by Air India Ltd. in favour of another employee, promoting him retrospectively from 1983 and as Manager from 01-01-1999. The employee, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, was promoted through time-bound policy but adjusted against a Scheduled Caste vacancy, despite not being in the zone of consideration. The committee found his retrospective promotion unfeasible, yet the Managing Director approved it as a special case. Air India Ltd. defended the promotion citing interchangeability rules and lack of prejudice to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Consequently, all three petitions were filed under Article 226, 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India, alleging discriminatory treatment by Air India Ltd. However, during the pendency of these writ petitions, the status of Air India Ltd. changed due to its privatization. On 27-01-2022, Air India Ltd. was disinvested through a share purchase agreement with Talace India (P) Ltd. As a result, it ceased to be a Government company after the transfer of 100% equity shares. When the matter came up for hearing, the question of maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against Air India Ltd. was raised.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that there was no doubt whatsoever about the applicability of the law of Precedent and doctrine of ‘Stare decisis’, which bound all the Courts in India. It was the fundamental legal principle, followed by Indian legal system, its applicability ensured consistency, stability and avoided divergence of opinion on similar issue, dealt with by the different courts. The Court noted that Article 141 of the Constitution also made a decision or a ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, binding on all the courts within the territory of India. The hierarchy of Courts in India with the Supreme Court at its apex, required the law laid down by it, binding on all the courts subordinate to it.
The Court highlighted that though Law of ‘Precedent’ was settled, however sometimes its applicability to certain cases was debated and disputed. There were catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, explaining the law of ‘Precedent’ and ‘Stare Decisis’ with its applicability. The Court referred to Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, (2023) 16 SCC 458, wherein it was held that not everything said by a Judge while delivering the judgment, constituted a precedent, only thing in a judge’s decision that could be construed as precedent was the principle upon which the case was decided. It was further concluded that though the law declared by the Supreme Court, in the form of ratio, was the law of the land, it was equally important, that the law so declared should have its application to the given facts of the case.
The Court observed that it was natural and reasonable for persons affected by Court decisions to expect adherence to previous decisions rendered on identical facts. The binding nature of a decision pertained to judicial discipline and propriety, requiring co-ordinate Benches to follow decisions of equal strength and not lightly disregard them. The Court further noted that the Supreme Court reiterated time and again that judicial indiscipline was an invaluable and inviolable rule to be followed by the Judges.
The Court referred to S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177, which dealt with a similar situation, and held that the most important consideration was the “function” test for maintainability of a writ. If a public duty or function was involved, any body, public or private, connected with that duty would be subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that, upon applying the functionality test, Air India Ltd. was not discharging any public function, as its status was that of a private company, established with the sole commercial objective of making profit. The Court further relied on R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 965, where it was observed that after privatisation, Air India Ltd. became a private entity not performing public functions and was not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The Court, therefore, concluded that although Writ Petition Nos. 1876 of 2001, 809 of 2002, and 1333 of 2002 were maintainable when instituted, they had ceased to be maintainable due to the privatisation of Air India Ltd., which was no longer discharging any public duty. Correct only grammar
Accordingly, the writ petitions and pending Interim Applications stood disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy in accordance with law, and the time spent pursuing the writ petitions would be excluded for limitation purposes.
[M. Yogeshwar Raj v. Air India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3013, decided on 25-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Manjusha A. Deshpande
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Ashok D. Shetty, Rita Joshi, Shashikant Patil, Rahul P. Shetty and Bushra Moughal.
For the Respondents: Lancy D’souza i/by Deepika Agarwal i/by V.M. Parkar.
Aditya Mehta, Rakesh Singh, Heena Shaikh i/by M.V. Kini and Co., Rakesh Singh, Heena Shaikh i/b M.V. Kini and Co.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
