IndiGo’s Gender-Biased Seating Policy: A Disturbing Departure from Equality
As an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, I have spent almost two decades witnessing protection of the principles of fairness, dignity, and equality before law. These are not abstract ideals but living guarantees under our Constitution, which every citizen and every institution is bound to respect. It is against this background that I view with grave concern the recent seating policy introduced by IndiGo Airlines.
Recently, we have seen the discriminatory seating policy issued by IndiGo Airlines providing women passengers ‘the choice to opt seat’ away from male passengers. The airline has unveiled a feature that allows women passengers to see where other women are seated during online booking, so that they may avoid being placed next to men. At first blush, this may appear to be a gesture of sensitivity, a progressive attempt to reassure female travellers. Yet beneath the veneer of empowerment lies a troubling presumption: that the mere presence of a man is an inherent cause of discomfort, that all men must be regarded as potential threats. Such a policy, by its very design, stigmatizes half the travelling population. A man who pays the same fare as any other passenger is denied the same choice, the same visibility, and the same privilege. More importantly, he is placed under an invisible cloud of suspicion. It is as if the airline has chosen to mark him out, not on the basis of his conduct, but on the basis of his gender alone. This, in my respectful view, is nothing short of discrimination.
Equality before law, enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution, does not merely prohibit hostile treatment of one group; it also prohibits unreasonable favouritism towards another. Safety and comfort of women are undoubtedly matters of importance, but they cannot be advanced by casting aspersions upon men as a class. True equality is not achieved by tilting the balance from one extreme to another; it is achieved by designing solutions that respect the dignity of all. There is also a deeper danger in normalising such distinctions. Today, the justification is gender. Tomorrow, it could be religion, caste, or community. If commercial entities are permitted to create artificial walls between passengers in the name of comfort, we risk reintroducing segregation into spaces that must remain common and equal. This is not the spirit of a constitutional democracy; it is a regression.
I do not for a moment dispute that women deserve comfort in public spaces. But reassurance cannot come at the cost of fairness. IndiGo could have, with little effort, framed this as a universal comfort feature (available to any passenger, irrespective of gender) and avoided the appearance of bias. Instead, by conferring this privilege exclusively on women, the airline has alienated men and offended the principle of equal treatment. For these reasons, I, being the torch bearer of fairness and justice, am compelled not merely to express dismay but to act. I am formally writing to IndiGo Airlines, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, urging immediate withdrawal or modification of this policy. It is essential that corrective measures be taken before such flawed precedents take root.
Let us be clear – no one contests the need for women’s safety. But safety cannot be built on suspicion, and comfort cannot be secured by discrimination. IndiGo’s policy, in its present form, reduces men to suspects by default. That is not a path our society should tread, nor a standard our laws can permit. The rule of law demands more and so should we.