Writ Petitions Against Air India Not Maintainable After Privatization: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that writ petitions filed against Air India Limited (AIL) when it was a government-owned company cannot continue after its privatization. A division bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha A. Deshpande held that Air India, after being sold to Talace India Pvt. Ltd. in January 2022, is no longer a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and does not perform public functions. Hence, it is outside the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Background

The case involved three writ petitions filed between 2001–2002 by Air India employees:

1. M. Yogeshwar Raj (2001): Challenged dismissal over a disputed caste certificate despite being cleared by an internal inquiry.
2. V. Pichumani & Ors. (2002): Questioned the pension scheme cut-off date, calling it discriminatory against employees who retired before April 1994.
3. Shobha Girish Bagwe (2002): Disputed a retrospective promotion given to another officer, alleging violation of reservation and seniority rules.

While these petitions were pending, Air India was privatized in 2022, which became the central issue.

Arguments

• Petitioners: Argued that their cases were valid when filed and should not be dismissed due to privatization. They relied on the Supreme Court’s Kaushal Kishor ruling, which allowed enforcement of fundamental rights even against private parties.
• Air India: Countered that after privatization, it ceased to be a “State” or perform public duties. Citing the R.S. Madireddy ruling (upheld by the Supreme Court), it said writs were no longer maintainable.

Court’s Findings

The bench highlighted that it was bound by precedent. The issue had already been settled in R.S. Madireddy, where the Supreme Court confirmed that writs cannot be issued against privatized Air India. The Court applied the “functionality test” and held that Air India now operates purely as a private company with profit-making as its objective.

Decision

The Court dismissed all three writ petitions, stating that although they were valid when filed, they lost their maintainability after privatization. However, it allowed the petitioners to explore other legal remedies and clarified that the time spent in pursuing these writs would not count towards limitation.