E-Paper
FDTL norms row: Delhi High Court reluctant to initiate contempt against DGCA
The Delhi high court on Tuesday said that it was not prima facie convinced to initiate contempt proceedings against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for granting exemptions to certain airline operators from implementing the new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms.
The Delhi high court on Tuesday said that it was not prima facie convinced to initiate contempt proceedings against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for granting exemptions to certain airline operators from implementing the new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms.
A bench of justice Amit Sharma expressed its reluctance while considering a petition filed by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP), seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the DGCA for allegedly failing to comply with the undertakings given to the court in February and April.
In February, the DGCA had told the high court that the new FDTL norms would be rolled out in two phases. Of the 22 proposed clauses, 15, including increasing pilots’ weekly rest from 36 to 48 hours, were scheduled to take effect from July 1. The remaining seven clauses, such as the revised definition of night duty, were to be implemented from November 1.
The changes deferred to November proposed classifying duty periods between midnight and 6 am as night duty, instead of the current window of midnight to 5 am.
In April, the high court closed petitions by FIP and other pilot unions challenging the DGCA’s 2019 rest-period norms after the regulator undertook to implement the new rules in phases.
FIP’s lawyer argued that the DGCA, despite its undertaking, was granting exemptions and relaxations to several airline operators, including Air India and SpiceJet, from implementing the norms that were to take effect on November 1. She further argued that the regulator had knowingly approved airline FDTL schemes that were inconsistent with the framework the DGCA itself had submitted to the court in its affidavit.
Defending the relaxation, DGCA’s lawyer Anjana Gosain said the exemptions were temporary, limited to six months until March and subject to review. She added that the regulator was empowered to grant such concessions. Gosain maintained that the DGCA had complied with its undertaking to implement the FDTL norms in phases beginning July 1 and November 1 and there was no cause of action for initiating contempt against it.
Considering the contention, the court remarked that the DGCA’s actions of granting exemptions could form the basis of a separate challenge, but not necessarily contempt.
“I understand if there is an issue of unreasonableness, discrimination or whatever, but today you’re asking for this court to initiate contempt proceedings. Where has there been willful disobedience or non-compliance? Today, I’m not able to convince myself that in the case of a contempt jurisdiction, where there was no seal on the affidavit by the court, that these are the clauses and there can be no deviation…In contempt jurisdiction, there is a limited scope,” the bench remarked.
It added, “Maybe you have a case there that whatever has been put on the affidavit is separate from what has been on the ground today. That will be a separate cause of action, to challenge the CAR (civil aviation requirements).”
In response, FIP’s lawyer sought time to place on record the court orders of the writ petitions that the association claimed had been wilfully disobeyed.
Accordingly, the court thus fixed December 15 as the next date of hearing.
“Renotify on December 15 to enable the counsel to place on record the documents,” the court said in the order.
