Social distancing during air travel: Bombay HC asks Centre to clarify if Covid-19 can be transmitted by inadvertent touch

A division bench of the Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday sought clarification from the expert committee, headed by the secretary of the Union civil aviation ministry,

A division bench of the Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday sought clarification from the expert committee, headed by the secretary of the Union civil aviation ministry, on whether Covid-19 could be transmitted through an inadvertent touch or through droplets.

HT Image

The division bench of justices SJ Kathawalla and SP Tavade called for the clarification after it noted the minutes of the meeting of the expert committee on May 26 to review and further strengthen the public health related protocols of air travel.

“The physical distance between two persons helps in minimising the transmission through an inadvertent touch. It was also suggested that if the person sitting adjacent to another person is provided with a protective suit (like a gown covering the upper part of the body and gloves), this can also be very good means of preventing the spread of virus either by droplets or by touch,” the minutes of the meeting, which was presented before the court, read.

The expert committee felt that providing protective gowns to intervening passengers (fliers on middle seats) would also minimise the risk of transmission through an inadvertent touch while in the aircraft or during boarding or alighting the aircraft.

In its response, the Centre, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general Anil Singh, submitted that 227 (0.38%) of the 58,867 passengers flown in from abroad through the Vande Bharat special flights to 17 cities tested positive for the virus during institutional quarantine and hence there was no proof to corroborate if they had contracted the infection on the flight.

The Centre also submitted that 105 flights carrying 11,119 passengers landed in Delhi, 26 flights carrying 3,461 passengers landed in Mumbai, while 31 flights carrying 4,316 passengers landed at Hyderabad airport. However, the data did not provide the details of Covid positive passengers from these three cities, even though together they accounted for 18,896 passengers who came to the country on 162 flights.

Kanani’s advocates Abhilash and Jyoti Panickar informed the court that the data provided by the Centre proved that the petitioner’s apprehensions, of the virus spreading on Vande Bharat flights due to non-maintenance of social distancing norms, were right. Abhilash Panickar further said that the lives of passengers had been put to risk by Air India as it had not maintained social distancing norms by keeping a seat vacant between two passengers. Panickar further submitted that the national average of Covid positive persons was 0.16% of the total population, but an average of 0.56% passengers who had travelled by Air India to the 14 cities on Vande Bharat flights had tested positive for the virus, which was alarming. Even if the three cities, whose data was not available, were eliminated, the average of 0.38% having contracted the virus was higher than the national average.

On its part, Air India, through senior advocate Darius Khambatta, advocates Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, Arsh Misra and Kavita Anchan, informed the bench that the air quality within the aircraft was equal to that of operation theatres, as the air was filtered through Hepa Filters and hence the apprehensions of the petitioner were unfounded.

The counsel for the Centre reiterated the expert committee’s recommendation, that if proper precautions were taken and the passenger on the middle seat was provided with personal protective equipment such as face shield and wrap-around gown, it would negate the chances of the spread of the virus even through an inadvertent touch.

After hearing the submissions, the bench sought clarification from the expert committee on whether the virus could be transmitted through an inadvertent touch or is transmitted through droplets and posted the matter for further hearing on Friday.