The Supreme Court made a stern statement while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) accusing Air India of security negligence and incidents. The court, siding with Air India, noted that due to one unfortunate accident, everyone seems eager to prosecute this airline. The question was raised: if security regulations need revision, why only target Air India and not other airlines?
Court's Firm Stand
Supreme Court acknowledged a very unfortunate incident but indicated that this doesn't warrant defaming Air India. It advised the petitioner not to appear as if serving rival airlines. If regulatory mechanisms are desired, they should apply to all airlines, not just Air India. The court remarked that one incident shouldn't lead to branding the entire airline negatively. Everyone seems eager to file against them, why not against others? The court also added that if you harbor a personal grievance against an airline or flight, plea with the consumer forum.
Petitioner's Claims
The petitioner’s lawyer shared a personal dissatisfaction with Air India. The court responded, stating that they too frequently travel by air. It suggested reaching out to relevant authorities for safety guidelines. If officials ignore, the court will intervene.
Demands of the Petition
Security Audit:
Demand for an international aviation safety agency to scrutinize Air India's fleet.
Transparent Reporting System:
Directive for the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to implement a transparent, publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents.
Victim Compensation:
Compensation for families affected by the Air India AI-171 incident per the Montreal Convention 1999, and ex-gratia or compensation for AI-143 passengers.
Court's Perspective
The Supreme Court advised the petitioner to approach appropriate authorities for safety guidelines. The court clarified that singling out Air India after an accident is unfair. Regulatory frameworks should encompass all airlines.
What's the Case About?
The petition accused Air India of negligence, particularly after the AI-171 plane mishap in Ahmedabad. It called for intense security audits and victim compensation, but the Supreme Court questioned the petitioner's motives while supporting Air India's stance.
