Why Target Air India Only: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Airline Safety Audit
According to a media report, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioner, lawyer Narendera Kumar Goswami, to withdraw his plea and approach the appropriate forum if he had any specific grievances.
'Don't give the impression that you are playing with other airlines. Why target Air India only, which recently witnessed an unfortunate tragedy? If you are seeking a regulatory mechanism, why didn't you include other airlines as parties in your petition? Why only Air India?' the bench questioned, as per the reports.
Goswami, appearing in person, claimed to be a victim of 'some unfortunate incident' involving the airline.
Justice Kant further remarked, 'We also travel every week and are aware of the situation. There was a tragedy, a very unfortunate one. This is not the time to run down an airline.'
The PIL, filed in July, requested the constitution of an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine Air India's safety protocols, maintenance standards, and operational procedures, with a report to be submitted within three months.
Additionally, Goswami sought a comprehensive safety audit of Air India's fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), to address deficiencies identified in ICAO's 2024 audit, and complete the audit within six months.
The petition also asked the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to enforce a transparent and publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents, with a centralised database aligned with the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and international best practices, as per the reports.
Furthermore, the PIL sought a direction for Air India to compensate the families of the victims of the AI-171 crash in line with the Montreal Convention, 1999, and to offer ex gratia payments or compensation to passengers of AI-143 for the inconvenience caused by a safety-related incident, as per the reports.
The petition was filed in the wake of a tragic accident on June 12, when Air India's London-bound flight AI-171, a Boeing Dreamliner 787-8 carrying 242 passengers and crew, crashed shortly after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
CCTVs in police stations in Andhra Pradesh: IJR says 58 per cent, DGP claims 100 per cent
VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh government and State police department have repeatedly asserted that they have strictly complied with Supreme Court directives to install closed-circuit security (CCTV) cameras in all police stations across the state. However, the latest India Justice Report 2025 presents a different picture. According to the report, only about 58.3% of police stations in the state are equipped with CCTV facilities, leaving the remaining stations without such surveillance infrastructure. This finding contradicts the government's claim of full compliance with court-mandated security measures. Responding to the IJR 2025 findings, DGP Harish Kumar Gupta disputed the report's data, stating that all police stations in the state are indeed equipped with CCTV cameras in accordance with Supreme Court directives. Meanwhile, neighboring Telangana state reported 88.9% CCTV cameras in their police stations, while Jharkhand state had the lowest percentage with 21.5%. In 2023, the Supreme Court of India took strong exception and gave three months to all police stations to comply with its December 2020 order to install CCTV cameras.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Pakistan says India overflight ban cost ₹1,240 crore in just over 2 months
Pakistan's Ministry of Defence reportedly told the National Assembly that the Pakistan Airports Authority (PAA) lost PKR 4.1 billion (₹1,240 crore) in a little over two months after closing its airspace to Indian-registered aircraft. The shortfall, from April 24 to June 30, is in overflying revenue and below earlier reports of PKR 8.5 billion, according to a report by Dawn. Why the airspace was closed? The airspace closure followed India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in April this year. India's action came after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 civilians were killed by Pakistan-based terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir. From April 24, Pakistan withdrew overflight permission for all Indian-registered aircraft and those operated, owned, or leased by Indian carriers. Why it matters The measure reportedly affected at least 100–150 Indian aircraft daily, cutting transit traffic by almost 20 per cent. While acknowledging financial losses, the ministry said 'sovereignty and national defence take precedence over economic considerations". It also clarified the figures reflect revenue shortfalls, not overall financial losses, and that overflight and aeronautical charges remain unchanged. The losses are not limited to Pakistan's aviation sector. Indian carriers such as Air India, IndiGo, SpiceJet, and Akasa Air have faced significant operational challenges due to the flight restrictions imposed following tensions in April–May 2025. According to a Reuters report, Air India estimates that sustained restrictions could cost it around USD 600 million annually, and has sought government compensation. Pakistan's restriction targets Indian airlines and aircraft through the last week of August after the ban was extended twice on a monthly basis. Pakistani carriers remain banned from Indian airspace. Separately, Islamabad International Airport's airspace will be closed daily for two hours until August 14 under NOTAM A0510/25. Departures and arrivals will be halted from ground level to FL210 between 11 am and 1 pm, affecting flights to Lahore and northern areas.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Banke Bihari Temple row: Supreme Court sets up 14-member panel to oversee functioning
The Supreme Court has set up a 14-member high-powered Temple Management Committee under former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Ashok Kumar to 'oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and outside' the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan till the High Court takes a decision on the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Ordinance bringing the shrine management under a trust. The committee members will include retired District & Sessions Judge Mukesh Mishra, District & Sessions Judge, Mathura, Munsif/Civil Judge, Mathura, District Magistrate/Collector, Mathura, Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, Municipal Commissioner, Mathura, Vice Chairman, Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority, a renowned architect to be engaged by the chairperson, a representative from the ASI and two persons each from Raj Bhog and Shayan Bhog — the two groups among Goswamis who are the temple's traditional administrators. The District Magistrate/Collector, Mathura, will also function as the member secretary. The August 8 order by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said: 'The Committee shall make an endeavor to plan the holistic development of the Temple… for which they may privately negotiate suitable purchase of the requisite land. In case no such negotiation fructifies, the State Government is directed to proceed with acquisition of the required land in accordance with law.' The court also said 'besides the four members in the Committee representing the Goswamis, no other Goswami or sevayat shall be allowed to interfere or impede in any way in the managing of the Temple's critical functions…' The order came on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and the directions in the SC's May 15, 2025 order allowing the state to use temple funds to buy 5 acres of land around the shrine for a proposed corridor project intended to decongest the area and improve facilities for visiting devotees. The SC pointed out that even before the May 15 order, the HC had by order dated November 8, 2023 disallowed the state from utilising the temple funds for land acquisition as part of the proposed redevelopment plan and the judgment was never challenged by the state and had thus attained finality. Noting that the May 15 order was passed not in any appeal challenging the November 2023 order, but by enlarging the scope of another matter where it was hearing a plea regarding the administration of Sri Giriraj Temple at Govardhan, Mathura, the SC said, given the fact that the HC order had attained finality, 'this Court could not have, in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction, effectively set aside the HC's judgment without any formal appeal or challenge being placed before it'. The SC directed that the concerned paragraphs be expunged from the May 15 order. While directing those who had challenged the constitutional validity of the Ordinance to approach the HC, the bench stayed the 'operation of' its 'in the interregnum, only to the extent they grant the state powers to constitute a Trust for managing the Temple's affairs'. 'Consequently, the constitution of the Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust, as defined in Section 3 of the Ordinance and its composition, as contained in Section 5, shall be kept in abeyance till the question of validity of the Ordinance is finally resolved by the High Court.' It clarified that 'this interim direction shall not preclude the state from ratification of the Ordinance in the state Assembly' but added that this will 'obviously be subject to outcome of the' HC decision on the Ordinance. It asked the HC to decide the question of constitutional validity of the UP Ordinance 'expeditiously and preferably within one year of the fresh writ petitions being filed'. Explaining why it was setting up the committee, the court said, 'We are equally mindful that the sum of our directions shall effectively leave the management of the subject-Temple in limbo yet again, since the ad-hoc arrangement of Temple-management has been wholly ineffective and inefficient in discharging its duties over the years. We are pained to observe that the previous administerial deadlock(s) and in-fighting have only worsened the problems… causing much distress to the pilgrims…' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
