The Delhi High Court has declined to direct the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to introduce specific regulatory guidelines and a dedicated grievance-redressal framework to deal with alleged misconduct, harassment and abusive behaviour by airline employees towards passengers.
Justice Amit Mahajan held that the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot compel the government to formulate rules or prescribe disciplinary measures merely because a litigant considers such a regulatory framework necessary.
The Court observed that framing rules, regulations and regulatory guidelines falls within the domain of the competent authorities and involves policy considerations.
The ruling came on a petition filed by a woman, Shalini Tiwari, who alleged that an IndiGo customer-care executive had used vulgar, abusive and gendered language while communicating with her over a customer-service complaint.
Tiwari approached the airline seeking accountability and disciplinary action against the employee concerned. However, alleging that her repeated representations had failed to elicit any meaningful response, she moved the High Court seeking directions to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the DGCA to formulate appropriate safeguards under the existing Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs).
She sought a transparent, impartial and time-bound mechanism for receiving, investigating and resolving complaints concerning misconduct, harassment, negligence and misbehaviour by airline personnel.
A key contention raised by the petitioner was that the existing CARs provide for stringent action against unruly passengers, but do not prescribe an equally effective framework to address inappropriate conduct by airline employees.
The High Court, however, was not persuaded that this perceived regulatory gap justified judicial intervention. It held that the absence of a parallel mechanism for dealing with complaints against airline personnel did not entitle the Court to mandate the formulation of rules in the manner suggested by the petitioner.
Distinguishing between the regulatory objectives governing passenger misconduct and employee behaviour, the Court observed that measures dealing with unruly passengers are primarily intended to safeguard the security and safety of airports and aircraft. Misconduct by airline personnel, on the other hand, could be addressed through appropriate civil or criminal remedies available under law.
The Court also took note of a communication issued by the DGCA on July 20, informing the petitioner that the airline had already undertaken corrective and preventive measures in response to her grievance.
In view of the action reportedly taken by IndiGo, the Court found no justification for issuing further directions concerning the same incident. It clarified, however, that the petitioner would remain at liberty to pursue appropriate civil or criminal remedies if she was dissatisfied with the action taken.
Dismissing the petition, the Court reiterated that passengers aggrieved by unlawful conduct or misconduct on the part of airline employees could seek redress through remedies available under the law.
Case: Shalini Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors.
The post Delhi High Court refuses to direct Centre, DGCA to frame rules against misconduct by airline staff appeared first on India Legal.