Air India crash expected soon: Govt's new demolition rules to target buildings & trees near airports spark debate; details here
The Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Buildings and Trees, etc.) Rules, 2025, were published on June 18, 2025, under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, and are open to public comment for 21 days.
What's new in the proposed rules?
These new Draft Rules are set to replace the 1994 Rules, which allowed the Deputy or Joint Director General of Civil Aviation to order the removal of height violations. Under the older framework, aggrieved individuals could appeal the order, and non-compliance meant the District Collector could step in.
The 2025 Draft Rules propose faster and more enforceable actions. Officials will be authorised to issue notices, carry out daytime inspections, and order demolition of non-compliant structures. Property owners will have 60 days to submit structural documents, and action can be taken if safety norms are breached. Importantly, only those who comply will be eligible for compensation under Section 22 of the 2024 Act. Unauthorized structures built after the notification date won't qualify.
Concerns over due process and consultation time
While the rules aim to strengthen aviation safety, they have been criticised for not including procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in demolition-related matters. The short 21-day window for public feedback has also raised concerns about the reactive nature of the policy process.
Why proactive regulation is critical
The crash of the Air India flight in Ahmedabad has once again highlighted how aviation regulations are often reactive. A historical example—the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism in 1990 criticised American aviation regulators for waiting for tragedies before acting. The same risk exists here.
Aviation rules must be grounded in research, account for technological developments, and include transparency through public consultation. As the upcoming crash report may reveal more gaps, this framework must be built with resilience and adaptability in mind.The draft rules are a step forward, but lasting change will need foresight, public trust, and evidence-based regulation beyond crisis response.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
In Kyiv, disheartened Ukrainians wary ahead of Trump-Putin summit
As President Donald Trump prepared to meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, Ukrainians were watching warily, fearful the US leader could sell Kyiv out in his bid for a quick deal with Moscow. The American leader, who has set his sights on securing a truce in Russia's 3-1/2-year-old war in Ukraine, agreed last week to hold the first US-Russian summit since 2021, abruptly ending Western attempts to isolate the Kremlin leader. Polls by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology show Ukrainians overwhelmingly want a negotiated settlement to end the fighting, but would also oppose any truce secured with crushing concessions. Half a dozen Ukrainians interviewed by Reuters on Kyiv's central square said they were not optimistic ahead of the summit. Some said they worried that Kyiv's interests would not be taken into account. 'I don't trust Trump. He says one thing today, another tomorrow. The day after tomorrow – another thing, in five days – something else. Therefore, I have no faith in him,' 47-year-old accountant Anna Sherstniova said. Tetiana Harkavenko, a 65-year-old cleaner, predicted the fighting would rage on after the summit. 'Nothing good will happen there, because war is war, it will not end. The territories – we're not going to give anything to anyone.' Trump has said any deal to end the war will require territorial concessions by both sides, and that he would like to see a follow-up meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Liubomyr Yurtsiv, 26, a technician, said he expected little would change after the meeting. 'Most likely, the outcome won't be positive,' he added. Valerii Kucherenko, a 31-year-old war veteran, had a similarly pessimistic take, speaking to Reuters at the pizzeria he set up in the town of Bila Tserkva outside the capital. Kucherenko lost both his hands to injuries that he sustained while storming a Russian position on the eastern front in 2023. 'I hope for peace on our terms, but we're all adults and understand it's not that simple. Putin and Trump may reach an agreement, but it will not be in our favour. This scenario will not suit us,' he said. 'We are Ukrainians, and we will defend our rights to the very end.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 minutes ago
- First Post
Yulia Navalnaya presses for prisoner release before Putin–Trump talks
Exiled Russian opposition figure Yulia Navalnaya has urged Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to strike a deal for the release of Russian and Ukrainian political prisoners. Speaking ahead of their Alaska meeting, she called for the liberation of activists, journalists, and civilians detained for opposing the Ukraine conflict. Exiled Russian opposition member Yulia Navalnaya urged Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on Friday to reach an agreement to liberate Russian and Ukrainian political prisoners detained by Moscow for speaking out against the conflict. Navalnaya, whose husband Alexei Navalny died in a Russian prison last year, spoke in a video message posted on social media hours before the two leaders were scheduled to meet in Alaska to discuss ways to stop the Ukraine conflict. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'You must take an irreversible step, something that cannot be undone,' Navalnaya said, addressing both Putin and Trump. 'Free Russian political activists and journalists. Free Ukrainian civilians. Free those imprisoned for anti-war statements and social media posts,' she said. Trump and Putin have previously reached agreements to liberate Russian and American citizens imprisoned in the other nation. Last year, Trump's predecessor Joe Biden orchestrated a massive prisoner swap in which two US journalists and many Russian opposition members were released in return for a number of alleged Russian undercover operatives apprehended in Europe. Russia has punished hundreds of people who opposed its invasion of Ukraine. In the days following its decision to send soldiers into neighbouring countries, Moscow enacted severe military censorship regulations that prohibited any criticism of the army or the dissemination of information from non-government sources. According to Kyiv, thousands of Ukrainian people have been jailed in Russia and regions of Ukraine controlled by Russia's troops since the invasion in February 2022.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Federal judge overturns Trump administration's anti-DEI directives, blocking threats to strip funding from schools and universities
The battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion in American classrooms reached a decisive moment on Thursday when a federal judge struck down two Trump administration directives aimed at eradicating such programmes from schools and universities. The ruling dismantles a policy framework that threatened institutions with financial ruin for maintaining equity-based initiatives, and it restores, at least temporarily, the space for educators to address longstanding disparities without fear of federal reprisal. Emerging from a political climate where DEI has become both a rallying cry and a lightning rod, the decision underscores how deeply divided the nation remains on questions of race, representation, and academic freedom. Opponents of the initiatives cast them as reverse discrimination; defenders see them as vital correctives to structural inequities. This judgment does not settle that moral argument, but it imposes a procedural halt on a campaign that had sought to recast civil rights law in ways critics warned would silence lawful and necessary educational practices. A ruling that reverberates across campuses US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland ruled that the Education Department acted unlawfully when it threatened to strip federal funding from institutions that maintained DEI efforts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The contested guidance, delivered through two internal memos, ordered the elimination of all 'race-based decision-making' in admissions, hiring, financial aid, and student life, or risk severe financial penalties. The memos had been on hold since April, after multiple courts blocked portions of the department's anti-DEI campaign. Thursday's decision, prompted by a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, sweeps away the guidance entirely. Educators push back against 'censorship' Plaintiffs argued that the directives forced educators into an impossible choice: Censor lawful speech and dismantle inclusive programmes or face the loss of federal funding and possible prosecution. A drastic expansion of Supreme Court ruling The February 14 memo sought to extend the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on affirmative action well beyond its original scope. It declared that any consideration of race in academic policy was a violation of civil rights law. A follow-up in April intensified the pressure, requiring states to certify they were not using 'illegal DEI practices' or face the False Claims Act. Gallagher rejected the government's argument that the memos merely restated existing law, noting instead that they 'initiated a sea change' in oversight and left 'millions of educators' fearing punishment for lawful and even beneficial actions. The procedural faultline Crucially, Gallagher did not weigh in on whether DEI is inherently good or bad. Her ruling focused on the Education Department's failure to meet procedural requirements, ordering the immediate withdrawal of the guidance. The department has not commented on the decision, which for now halts an initiative critics described as government overreach dressed in the language of equality. A deeply polarised battlefield Supporters of the memos claimed DEI discriminates against white and Asian American students, while opponents view it as an essential tool to address entrenched inequities. Thursday's decision keeps the debate alive, and, for now, leaves space for educators to continue equity-driven practices without the shadow of federal retaliation. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
