In January 2009, nine women working as air hostesses for Air India received identical letters. Each one informed them that their services had been terminated. The letter included a month’s salary and a formal reason for dismissal: permanently medically unfit.
The women had already been grounded for nearly three years. Air India maintained strict weight rules for its cabin crew, with limits tied to age and height. For a woman measuring 152 centimeters, the acceptable range could be between 50 and 56 kilograms depending on age. Until recently, the airline had allowed a margin of three extra kilograms. That margin was quietly withdrawn.
These women, aged between 30 and 40, had served the airline for as long as 18 years in some cases. Once grounded, they had asked for reassignment to ground duties. Instead, they were told to leave. One of the dismissed women told reporters that the move felt pointed. She said it was hard to ignore how many other crew members, regardless of fitness, continued to serve on flights.
Their dismissal came just after the New Year. At the time, the country’s aviation minister had publicly urged airlines to avoid cutting jobs. Air India, however, said its action followed internal rules. The women had failed to meet the weight standards, and the company considered that a breach of operational fitness.
The company employed around 1,400 cabin crew on its domestic network. At any given time, about 150 were listed as unavailable due to medical issues or weight-related grounding. The airline said it had given ample time for these nine women to return to standard but eventually ruled them unfit to fly.
A Matter of Looks
Before the dismissals were finalized, the matter had already reached the courts. In mid-2008, the Delhi High Court was asked to weigh in on Air India’s weight policy. The court sided with the airline.
The judges said there was nothing unreasonable in expecting air hostesses to meet prescribed weight norms. The airline had tied those limits to height and age, and the court saw that as a legitimate standard. The judgment stated clearly that appearance mattered in the aviation industry. It acknowledged that the job involved public interaction and presentation, and supported the view that those qualities could be regulated.
The court also addressed the request made by the grounded employees for ground roles. It said the airline had no obligation to reassign them, especially when the employment contract did not guarantee alternative postings. The court made it clear that in such roles, performance and presentation were closely linked.
With this ruling in place, Air India moved ahead with the terminations. The court’s judgment offered legal support for the company’s actions, and the policy remained unchanged for the time being.
The issue reappeared in the courts two years later. This time, it was the Supreme Court that reviewed the matter. The justices looked at similar dismissals and raised concerns about whether appearance-based rules could override other forms of competence. The discussion extended beyond weight. The court examined whether a long-serving employee could be denied a role simply based on body measurements when they remained medically fit.
In one case, a woman named Neepa Dhar had joined the airline in 1987. She was grounded in 1997 due to weight gain linked to medication. In 2001, she was dismissed entirely. In 2010, the Calcutta High Court ordered her reinstatement with full back pay and assignment to ground duties.
Around the same time, Air India voluntarily invited ten of the previously dismissed women to reapply for their positions. This came during a staffing shortage that had caused delays and flight cancellations. Three of the women agreed to return. The others declined. The airline clarified that the original rules would still apply. Anyone returning would need to meet the same height and weight limits. A spokesperson confirmed that the company had not altered its standards.
Eventually, the Supreme Court directed that the women who had challenged their termination must be rehired. The court acknowledged the company’s right to enforce rules but questioned the long delay in addressing the complaints. It also noted that the airline had failed to offer reasonable alternatives, even when employees had asked to be moved to non-flying roles.
The Face Test
Five years before the weight-related dismissals made headlines, Air India had already drawn attention for its hiring practices. In 2004, the airline held a mass recruitment drive at a stadium in Delhi. More than 32,000 people applied for 400 cabin crew positions. It was the first large-scale hiring in a decade.
Each applicant went through multiple stages. The first was a personality test recorded on video. Those who passed moved on to a written exam, followed by a final round of interviews. But many candidates were turned away before any of that. The criteria focused heavily on physical appearance.
Air India’s personnel manager at the time said clearly that visible scars, acne, or irregular teeth would be grounds for rejection. She stated that looks played a central role in cabin crew work, and that this shaped how applications were evaluated. The comments were reported by the BBC. She said they examined skin, height, and general presentation as part of the selection.
The drive attracted mostly young people from lower and middle-income households. For many, it was a rare opportunity to earn well, travel the world, and gain social mobility. At the time, the airline offered a starting salary of 36,000 rupees, with the potential to increase based on flying hours.
Some candidates had dreamed of working in aviation since childhood. The idea of stepping onto an aircraft in uniform, speaking to passengers from across the world, and moving between cities appealed to something bigger than a job. It offered movement, visibility, and a sense of being part of something important.
For others, this was the first clear path out of their hometowns. The airline promised not just travel but also structure, income, and routine. Many applicants came from lower or middle-income families, where the idea of flying for work had once felt out of reach. The job came with training, housing support, and a starting salary that few entry-level roles could match.
One applicant said she had wanted to apply for years but had never said it aloud. Her parents had encouraged her to study for government exams or find office work closer to home. When the Air India recruitment was announced, they helped her prepare. They ironed her clothes, printed her documents, and waited outside the venue as she stood in line. It was the first time her ambition felt real to the people around her.
This emphasis on appearance was not unique to one moment. It had shaped hiring, evaluations, and terminations over several years. The standards were written into policy, enforced by management, and upheld by the courts until pressure mounted to change.
Years later, that same job many had once viewed as a way forward became the reason several women were pushed out. They had flown for over a decade, followed every protocol, and stayed with the airline through its changes. When the rules shifted, they asked to keep working in any role they could. Their requests were denied.
The final court rulings arrived slowly. By the time reinstatements were ordered, flying was no longer an option for some of them. They returned to the airline in quieter roles, posted on the ground, carrying years of experience that had once been overlooked.
