E-Paper
SC for status quo on middle seats of aircraft till June 6
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde allowed Air India to fill up middle seats of the rescue flights for 10 more days, after taking into account difficulties that passengers, including families, could face in the event middle-seat passengers are offloaded in foreign airports on grounds of social distancing.
New Delhi: Air India may operate non-scheduled relief and rescue flights on international routes with middle seats occupied until June 6, the Supreme Court ordered on Monday, partly modifying a May 22 Bombay high court order that ordered the national airline to keep middle seats vacant while flying in passengers stranded abroad by the coronavirus crisis and the suspension of most international flights.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde allowed Air India to fill up middle seats of the rescue flights for 10 more days, after taking into account difficulties that passengers, including families, could face in the event middle-seat passengers are offloaded in foreign airports on grounds of social distancing.
The top court remanded the matter back to the Bombay high court to pass an appropriate interim order on June 2, the next date of hearing of the case in the high court. Air India will have to comply with the interim order of the Bombay high court while operating non-scheduled flights after June 6.
“You should be worried about the health of citizens and not about health of commercial airlines,” CJI Bobde told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for Air India and the central government.
During the hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court bench, which also comprised justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, remarked that there should be no distinction between international and domestic flights when it comes to adherence to social distancing norms. “There shouldn’t be a difference (between international and domestic flights). It is common sense that maintaining social distancing is important”, the court remarked.
However, the Bombay high court specifically said that its order was applicable only to non-scheduled international flights, in light of the fact (as pointed out by the petitioner in that case) that some of the evacuees were coming from countries ravaged by Covid-19 and could be infected. This means that the Supreme Court’s decision today may not have any bearing on scheduled domestic flights, which began on Monday.
“We are of the considered view that the petitioner, Air India, should be allowed to operate the non-scheduled flights with the middle seats booking up to 6th June, 2020,” the Supreme Court said on Monday. “However, after that (June 6) Air India will operate non-scheduled flights in accordance with the interim order to be passed by the Bombay high court”, the top court said.
The apex court was critical of Air India’s logic in seeking to operate international flights without keeping the middle seats vacant. It also said that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is free to alter any norms during the pendency of the matter in the interest of public health and safety of the passengers rather than commercial considerations.
The petitioner before the high court, Deven Yogesh Kanani, who is an Air India pilot, pointed out that operating flights without keeping middle seats vacant was in violation of the circular issued by the DGCA on March 23.
Air India took a stance that the circular of March 23 applied only to scheduled domestic flights and not non-scheduled international flights. Further,the airline argued that the March 23 circular was superseded by a circular issued on May 22 as per which there is no express mandate to keep centre seats vacant.
In its order, the Bombay high court said that it cannot accept the submission of the Air India that social distancing measures provided by the March 23 circular so as to prevent spread of Covid-19 would apply only to scheduled domestic flights and not to non-scheduled international flights. Air India and the Union government approached the Supreme Court on Sunday, seeking a stay on the order.
Solicitor general Mehta emphasised the difficulties that passengers may face if the middle seat bookings are cancelled. He told the court that one-third of the passengers who are expected to be brought in by the non-scheduled flights would be left stranded in foreign airports if the high court order was not stayed.
“According to Mr. Mehta, this [Bombay high court order] has resulted in a lot of anxiety and difficulties arising from want of proper shelter, money, etc., at the foreign airports. Moreover, in some cases, the travel plan of families who were travelling together has been disrupted because those in the families who had middle seats have to be offloaded and remain behind”, the Supreme Court noted in its order.
On May 7, India launched the Vande Bharat mission to bring back Indians stranded overseas since the last week of March, when scheduled flights to and from India were cancelled. Since then, over 400 flights have been organised from 98 countries, to rescue 259,000 Indians. On May 22, the Indian government extended the mission to include some categories of Overseas Citizens of India or OCIs.
The central government also pointed out the difficulties in convincing airport authorities of foreign nations to offload passengers based on an order passed by a court in India. Besides, it was also submitted that keeping the middle seat unoccupied will not help much in preventing the transmission of the coronavirus.
“How can you say it will not affect anyone? Outside [the aircraft], there should be a social distancing of at least 6 feet. Will the Virus know it is in the aircraft and is not supposed to infect ?” the court asked.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said: “The order would not possibly have been passed but for the tickets already having been sold. The court’s inclination appeared to be to insist on distancing within the aircraft which it has now mandated from June. Accepting a fait accompli from the government for tickets sold for one or two days is understandable. Once a concession is permitted by the court for over ten days, it appears quite likely that the government will give itself a fresh extension, by new administrative orders. In the meanwhile, those who will have flown in the interim period, may be exposed to unacceptable levels of risk.”
