Bollywood may be bowled over by Size Zero. But the Delhi High Court hardly agrees with the trend. The court’s take on how fat is fashionably fat came out in the open during a discussion between one of the country’s top government advocates, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium, and a Division Bench of Justices A K Sikri and J R Midha on what would be the “optimum fitness” for an Indian Airlines air-hostess. “We do not want air-hostesses to be Size Zero. Even models now do not want to be Size Zero,” Justice Sikri lightly put the rather “weighty” appeal of an Indian Airlines stewardess grounded for tipping the weight scale. The “overweight” air-hostesses were in June 2007 left with the thin choice of “either battle the bulge or face the axe” by a Single Bench of Justice Rekha Sharma. Justice Sharma, a senior lady judge in the High Court, had rationalised the public carrier’s decision on two factors: Cut-throat competition and high-altitude emergencies. The Single Bench had in its verdict even bothered to pep up the spirits of the air-hostesses by drawing a parallel from the Scriptures: “If by perseverance snail could reach the Ark, why can’t these worthy ladies stand on and turn the scale”. The debate, meanwhile, progressed to broach the ills of aspiring to be thin, and the ASG was keen to correct the Bench that Size Zero was not the same as the “mental condition” called anorexia. “Anorexia is a psychological problem and requires treatment. It is quite a different issue all together,” said ASG Subramanium. He assured the court that the public air carrier does indeed employ “extremely seasoned” air-hostesses who continue to the age of superannuation of 58 years. “They go on to be teachers in flying crew training schools,” pointed out Subramanium. The body weight figures quoted in the Indian Airlines Service Regulations were yardsticks for optimum fitness demanded of its stewardesses, he said. “These are not fanciful figures meant for an athlete, and which an air-hostess should aspire to have.” The Bench agreed that every profession had its own fitness standards. Justice Sikri observed: “Being a hyper-tense person is not a disqualification for a judge, but, let’s say, it is enough to declare an army man medically unfit.” The appeal had specifically challenged the legality of a circular issued by DGM (IFS) under the advice of the Executive Director (IFS) IAL Headquarters on May 4, 2006 by which grounding of air-hostesses became effective with the taking away of the grace weight. The air-hostesses, through their counsel Arvind Kumar Sharma, contended that service regulations concerned “talks about flying crew, including cabin crew, will be retained in service so long as they remain medically fit for flying duties”. “The airlines uses general health standards for determining if a stewardess is overweight or not. To determine the accurate weight of an individual, one has to take into account individual Body Mass Index and body frame into account,” submitted Sharma. “Grounding of air-hostesses on being overweight by nearly 500 grams is contrary to service regulations and totally malafide,” he added. But the court acknowledged with the ASG’s submission that the air-hostesses were already in the know when they signed the contract. The Bench limited its jurisdiction to the question whether an overweight air-hostess ought to be given an opportunity to trim up before she is grounded. As the hearing wrapped up, Sharma shot a poser to Justice Sikri, who reserved the appeal for a final verdict, as to why a “pilot who is 20 kg overweight not grounded? Why does this rule apply to stewardesses alone?” Pat came the reply from the judge: “ Maybe that’s why pilots don’t show their faces too often.”
