Centre notifies draft rules to clear obstacles near airports
The central government issued draft rules on Wednesday to regulate and remove physical obstructions around airports, six days after the devastating Air India crash in Ahmedabad, the deadliest in three decades, as authorities separately spoke of plans to survey structures near the city's airport for potential safety violations.
The Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Buildings and Trees etc.) Rules, 2025, were notified on June 18 under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, and are open for public feedback for 21 days. The rules aim to replace the three-decade-old Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions) Rules, 1994.
Under the proposed framework, the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) will have expanded authority to take action against any structure violating height restrictions around airports. 'Any building or tree that violates notified height restrictions around airports may face demolition or height reduction orders from the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA),' the draft rules state.
The regulations establish a detailed enforcement mechanism where airport authorities must notify owners of potential violations and conduct physical verification. Property owners will be required to submit structural details within 60 days, with a possible 60-day extension if granted.
'If the DGCA determines, after providing an opportunity for a hearing, that a building or tree violates safety norms, an order can be issued for its demolition, trimming, or reduction in height,' the draft states.
In cases of non-compliance, district collectors will be authorised to enforce demolition procedures, treating violations as unauthorised construction under local law. 'On receiving the report from the officer-in-charge of the aerodrome, the district collector shall carry out forthwith the demolition of the building or the cutting of the tree or reduction in height of the building... in the same manner and by the same procedure as is followed in case of demolition of any unauthorized construction in his district,' the rules specify.
The draft rules come as authorities prepare to conduct a comprehensive survey around Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport following last week's crash. According to PTI, Ahmedabad district collector Sujeet Kumar told reporters that 'a survey of areas surrounding the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport here will be conducted by the officials of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Civil Aviation department.'
'Once the survey gets over, subsequent necessary work will be initiated,' Kumar said. The collector cited the new draft rules as providing the framework for potential action against structures posing threats to aircraft safety.
Some analysts cautioned that while many airports around the country have buildings nearby that violate height norms, following through with an actual demolition will be hard. 'While it's easy to make rules, it will be next to impossible to implement them,' given the scale of non-conforming structures, said Mark Martin, founder and CEO at Martin Consulting, an aviation advisory firm, Bloomberg reported.
An official at the Delhi airport said a survey will be initiated to identify obstructions in the Capital by both the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and the directorate general of civil aviation. 'The Air Traffic Control (ATC) directly reports to the AAI and so it will share information on possible obstructions. Both AAI and DGCA will also do their own surveys,' said the official, pointing to a similar exercise done in 2018 when 369 obstructions were identified, including trees, poles and buildings. 'Subsequently, AAI also took action against these obstructions,' the airport official added.
Compensation provisions are limited under the proposed new framework. 'Compensation may be available but only for compliant or pre-existing structures. New constructions violating notified height restrictions will not be eligible,' the rules specify.
The London-bound Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed into a medical hostel complex in Meghaninagar area moments after take-off on June 12, killing all but one of the 242 people aboard and 29 others on the ground.
The aircraft departed Ahmedabad airport at 1:39 PM on June 12, with the pilot issuing a Mayday distress call shortly after take-off before the plane crashed into the medical complex located outside the airport compound.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Months Before Air India Crash, Parliamentary Report Flagged Safety Risks, Funding Imbalances
Last Updated: A March 2025 parliamentary report flagged a major imbalance in aviation budget allocations. It also raised concerns over chronic vacancies in key aviation regulatory agencies. The Air India plane crash on June 12 has brought a parliamentary standing committee report from March back in focus, because it flagged a 'discrepancy in funding", thus raising questions on the prioritisation of regulatory compliance over security infrastructure and accident investigation capabilities. According to multiple media reports, the report also questioned the high number of vacancies across key aviation regulatory and operational bodies, particularly in the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), and the Airports Authority of India (AAI). The committee flagged that the 2025-26 allocation of funds across key aviation bodies is skewed, with the DGCA commanding the largest share of the budget in comparison to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). 'The Committee observes that the Capital Outlay for BE [budgetary estimate] 2025-26 has a distinct imbalance in the allocation of funds across key aviation bodies. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), entrusted with regulatory oversight, commands the largest share of Rs 30 crore-nearly half of the total budget," the report said. 'While its role in ensuring compliance with aviation standards is indisputable, the justification for such a significant allocation must be carefully examined to ensure efficiency and accountability. The discrepancy in funding raises important questions about the prioritisation of regulatory compliance over security infrastructure and accident investigation capabilities," it stated. The committee said that in comparison to the Rs 30 crores allotted to the DGCA, the BCAS and the AAIB together receive a far more 'modest" allocation in view of 'growing complexity of aviation security threats and the critical nature of accident investigations". 'In contrast, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) receive Rs 15 crore and Rs 20 crore, respectively. While regulatory compliance remains essential, the rapid expansion of aviation infrastructure, with airports increasing from 74 in 2014 to 147 in 2022 and a target of 220 by 2024-2025, necessitates proportional growth in security capabilities and accident investigation resources." 'In view of the growing complexity of aviation security threats and the critical nature of accident investigations, the Committee finds these allocations relatively modest," the report mentioned. Further, the committee recommended 'regular performance evaluations of DGCA and BCAS funding to ensure that these resources translate into tangible improvements in aviation safety, regulatory efficiency, and security preparedness". Also highlighting the high number of vacancies across key aviation regulatory and operational bodies, the Committee stated it was deeply concerned that chronic understaffing in these institutions could undermine safety, security, and service delivery standards, particularly as air traffic volumes continue to rise. GOVT SETS UP NEW PANEL TO PROBE AHMEDABAD PLANE CRASH On June 14, two days after the horrific Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad, the government set up a high-level panel to investigate the causes of the Ahmedabad plane crash and the investigation is progressing smoothly. 'Decoding the black box is going to give in-depth insight into what happened moments before the plane crash," Civil Aviation Minister K Rammohan Naidu said at a briefing in the national capital. Civil Aviation Secretary Samir Kumar Sinha said the investigation is going on smoothly. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is probing the crash. He said that the aircraft took off at 1.39 pm and within a few seconds, after reaching a height of about 650 feet, it started sinking. At 1.39 pm, the pilot informed Ahmedabad ATC that it was a May Day– full emergency." According to ATC, Sinha said, when it tried to contact Air India aircraft the ATC did not receive any response. Exactly one minute later, the plane crashed in Meghaninagar, about 2 km from the airport. According to him, the aircraft started losing its height after reaching 650 feet. Air India's Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft, operating a flight from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed soon after takeoff on Thursday afternoon. Out of the 242 people on board the plane, only one person survived. Before the accident, the aircraft had operated the Paris-Delhi-Ahmedabad route and had completed its flight successfully, the civil aviation secretary said. ALSO READ | Air India To Cut International Services Amid Ongoing Safety Checks On Boeing 787 Fleet About the Author Vani Mehrotra Vani Mehrotra is the Deputy News Editor at She has nearly 10 years of experience in both national and international news and has previously worked on multiple desks.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
Best of BS Opinion: Why policy must shelter everyone without favour
It's that season again, when the rains surprise you. You step out without an umbrella, only to see someone near you pull one out, wide and sturdy but only for themselves. Or worse, they tilt it just enough to keep their shoulder dry while yours soaks. That's what bad policy often looks like. Advice or governance that shelters a few, but leaves the rest exposed. Advisory should be like a good umbrella; broad, responsive, and meant for all. Let's dive in. Pan Gongsheng, China's central bank chief, wants to widen the global monetary umbrella, away from dollar dominance. With six foreign banks joining China's SWIFT alternative and ECB's Christine Lagarde echoing concerns, there's a visible push. But, as our first editorial notes, China's capital controls and credibility gaps mean the renminbi (Chinese Yuan) isn't a ready replacement. Instead, we may end up with a fragmented financial drizzle with more transaction costs and less shelter for all. Closer home, Uttar Pradesh is building something more inclusive. The state is planning 15 MSME zones across 11 districts, using over 700 acres to energise small businesses. Programmes like One District One Product are reshaping exports, but the umbrella is still lopsided, argues our second editorial. Only one in three MSMEs are run by women, and agro-processing remains underscaled. For MSMEs to truly flourish, policies must unfurl beyond land to credit access, rural skilling, and logistical ease. Air safety, argues K P Krishnan, urgently needs its own umbrella. India's DGCA is shackled, lacking autonomy, money, and modern recruitment. Global regulators like the FAA and CAA operate with real independence. India needs an Aviation Safety Authority through a full Act of Parliament, with financial muscle and legal teeth. After all, umbrellas shouldn't only open after the thunderclap. And Vinayak Chatterjee writes of a nuclear pivot. From Small Modular Reactors to private sector entry, India's ambitious 100 GW goal by 2047 demands updated laws and new investors. But unless vendor liability rules, fuel security, and financing reforms come through, the umbrella will remain stuck at half-open. Finally, in Private Revolutions: Coming of Age in a New China, as reviewed by Gunjan Singh, Yuan Yang reminds us that in China too, the umbrella of reform has left many standing at the edge. Her portrait of four women reveals how revolutions may roar from the state but the everyday act of staying dry is personal, persistent, and quietly radical. Stay tuned and remember, advisory shouldn't be weather-dependent or selective. Open it wide or what's the point?
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC refrains from interfering with ADGP's suspension
The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from interfering with the suspension of senior IPS officer and additional director general of police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in a kidnapping case involving a minor, even as it set aside the Madras High Court's order that directed his arrest and requested the high court chief justice to transfer the matter to another bench. The top court said the matter now warranted a 'dispassionate' investigation by a specialised agency, prompting the Tamil Nadu government to agree to hand over the probe to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which it described as the 'highest investigating body in the state.' A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the directions after senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that Jayaram's suspension was not based on any judicial order but on provisions of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which allow suspension of an officer against whom a criminal investigation is pending. Jayaram, a senior officer of the 1995 batch, was suspended by the state government earlier this week after he was alleged to have played a part in the kidnapping of a 16-year-old boy in May, reportedly linked to an inter-caste marriage. The Madras High Court directed the state to arrest Jayaram, stating that 'no one is above the law,' triggering the suspension order shortly after his detention by the Tiruvallur district police. However, the Supreme Court, which questioned the suspension order on Wednesday, took note of the state's latest submission on Thursday and clarified that it would not intervene in the suspension, while allowing Jayaram the liberty to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 'Looking into the controversial circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case may be handed over to CBCID,' the bench recorded in its order, while also directing that 'the direction of the high court to secure arrest and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside.' During the hearing, the bench engaged in a pointed exchange with the Tamil Nadu government's counsel, expressing concern over the suspension in the absence of any arrest. 'If he has not been arrested, on what basis has he been suspended?' the bench asked Dave. Dave responded: 'Rules provide that an officer can be placed under suspension if there is a criminal investigation pending against him. It was not based on the order of the high court. It is totally under the rules.' To this, the bench suggested the state consider transferring the probe to an independent agency. 'You might consider transferring this investigation to a CID or some other independent agency for a dispassionate probe. You may even seek a transfer of this matter to a different judge,' the court observed. Jayaram's counsel interjected to argue that the high court overstepped its authority. 'The court acted like police and ordered for his arrest. I was not even named in the FIR,' he submitted. The bench, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations but reiterated that the state was well within its power to suspend the officer, while noting that Jayaram could always challenge the order. 'If the state wants to suspend you in exercise of its power, we cannot come in the way at this stage. You challenge the suspension order under the rules,' the bench said. Dave, upon taking instructions, returned to the bench later and submitted: 'We will entrust this matter to the CBCID, which is the highest investigating body in the state.' In its written order, the Supreme Court recorded that Dave had clarified the suspension was under statutory rules and independent of the high court's direction. The order noted: 'After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner will have his remedies to assail the order of suspension…We would also request the chief justice of the high court to assign this matter and all connected FIRs to another bench.' Jayaram's suspension followed allegations that he abetted the kidnapping of a minor boy, whose elder brother married a woman from a different caste. The woman's family, allegedly opposed to the marriage, is accused of abducting the younger sibling in an attempt to coerce the couple. According to the complaint by the boy's mother, her home was raided by the woman's family members last month, who used Jayaram's official vehicle in the abduction. The boy was later found injured near a hotel. The case has led to the arrest of five individuals, including the woman's father, a lawyer, and a now-dismissed policewoman. Their statements reportedly implicated both Jayaram and KV Kuppam MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy, who has since appeared for questioning in compliance with court directions. Earlier this week, Justice P Velmurugan of the Madras High Court ordered Jayaram's arrest while hearing Moorthy's pre-arrest bail plea, slamming the alleged use of 'Kangaroo courts' and abuse of power.
