Lawyer moves Supreme Court seeking suspension of Air India Boeing fleet
New Delhi [India], June 24 (ANI): A Public Interest Litigation plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an interim suspension of all of Air India's Boeing flights following the fatal Air India crash in Ahmedabad on June 12 that killed 241 of the 242 passengers.
The plea has been filed by Advocate Ajay Bansal, who has sought a safety audit of all of Air India flights and those of other airlines to address systemic safety failures in Air India's operations, particularly its Boeing fleet.
The plea has raised several grounds, the foremost being the gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. The petitioner argues that passenger safety is an integral part of this right, and chronic maintenance failures, such as those evident in the present case, constitute an infringement of the same.
Further, the petition highlights a breach of statutory duties under the Aircraft Act and Rules, especially Rules 30 and 134, which mandate periodic airworthiness and fitness checks. It alleges that Air India's conduct demonstrates clear non-compliance with these mandatory requirements. Additionally, the petitioner emphasises that the statutory obligation to conduct regular safety audits and provide adequate passenger facilities on international flights has not been met, resulting in a major accident and the loss of 241 passengers, including many aspiring doctors, thereby affecting families and communities at large.
The plea also asserts that there has been inadequate enforcement of safety regulations by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS).
The plea further alleges that systemic maintenance gaps, including malfunctioning air conditioning systems before take-off, routinely evade the oversight of these authorities, showing a failure to implement mandatory pre-flight procedures.
The petitioner highlights that the Supreme Court has, in the past, issued guidelines in similar public interest matters concerning safety in the transportation sector, such as in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987). Therefore, there is a pressing need to strictly enforce all rules, regulations and guidelines under the Aircraft Act, 1934; the Aircraft Rules, 1937; DGCA directions; Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR); advisory circulars; and international conventions such as the Montreal Convention, 1999, which establishes a carrier's duty of care, the plea adds.
On these grounds, the petitioner seeks interim reliefs, including the issuance of mandatory, time-bound guidelines for safety and operational checks; unannounced audits with public disclosure of findings; immediate grounding of any non-compliant aircraft until rectification and re-certification; and stringent enforcement of airworthiness norms across all airlines operating in India. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Verification pending on MPs' signatures for Judge Shekhar Yadav's removal notice
The Rajya Sabha Secretariat has verified the signatures of 44 out of the 55 Members of Parliament who endorsed a notice seeking the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Yadav for his alleged 'hate speech', while senior advocate Kapil Sibal and nine other MPs are yet to complete the verification process. Mr. Sibal, who has vocally demanded early action on the motion, claimed he had not received any communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. However, the Secretariat has maintained that emails were sent to his official address on three occasions over the past six months. Raising questions about the need for signature verification and the delay in processing the notice, which was submitted on December 13, 2024, Mr. Sibal said, 'I have met Chairman Dhankhar several times but he has never raised the issue of verification of my signatures on the notice for the removal of Justice Yadav as I am the presenter and initiator of the entire process.' Also Read | Senior lawyers urge CJI to direct CBI to lodge FIR against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav The senior advocate said that verification becomes relevant only if a signature is challenged. 'The House chairman should either accept or reject the notice, not delay the process,' he said. The notice, signed by 55 MPs, was submitted without a date and not addressed to any specific authority. Rajya Sabha sources revealed that one of the signatories, Sarfaraz Ahmed, a JMM MP from Jharkhand, had his signature appear twice on the document. Mr. Ahmed has reportedly confirmed to Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar that he signed the notice only once. The Secretariat is examining whether the duplication was due to forgery. According to Article 124 of the Constitution, a judge can only be removed after both Houses of Parliament pass an address by a two-thirds majority, followed by Presidential assent. For initiating such a motion, at least 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha or 100 in the Lok Sabha must endorse the notice. Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar addressed the issue during the last Parliament session, stating that signature verification was essential for procedural compliance. 'Of the 55 members who signed the representation, a member's signature appears on two occasions and the member concerned has denied his signature,' he told the House on March 21. He added, 'If the number is above 50, I will proceed accordingly.' Mr. Dhankhar urged members who had not yet responded to the second email reminder to do so promptly. 'Then, the process will not be delayed at my level even for a moment,' he said. As of now, signatures of MPs including Raghav Chadha and Sanjeev Arora (AAP), Sushmita Dev (TMC), Jose K. Mani (Kerala Congress), Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, G.C. Chandrasekhar, and Faiyaz Ahmed remain unverified, according to sources. Senior advocate P. Chidambaram said he was shown the physical copy of the notice only recently and has now verified his signature, although the Secretariat has not yet confirmed this. Mr. Sibal has argued that Justice Yadav should not be protected, alleging that the judge made communal remarks at a public event last year. He has also criticised the extended six-month timeline taken for verification. The possibility of further inquiry by the Ethics Committee or Privileges Committee has not been ruled out, especially in light of the alleged forged signature on the document. The Constitution permits Parliament to frame laws for the procedure of investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge, further underlining the importance of procedural rigour in such proceedings.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
Japan fires Type 88 Missile in landmark test as military strategy shifts amid China-Russia concerns
The test involved the Type 88 surface-to-ship, short-range missile and was conducted at the Shizunai Anti-Air Firing Range, located on the northernmost main island of Hokkaido read more Japan's army test-fires a Type 88 surface-to-ship short-range missile at the Shizunai Anti-Air Firing Range on Japan's northern main island of Hokkaido in its first missile test on Japanese territory. AP Japan's military announced on Tuesday that it had carried out a missile test on Japanese soil for the first time, as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen its defence capabilities amid rising regional tensions. The test involved the Type 88 surface-to-ship, short-range missile and was conducted at the Shizunai Anti-Air Firing Range, located on the northernmost main island of Hokkaido. According to officials, approximately 300 personnel from the Ground Self-Defense Force's 1st Artillery Brigade took part in the exercise. The drill involved the use of a training missile aimed at an unmanned boat positioned roughly 40 kilometres (24 miles) off Hokkaido's southern coastline. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) noted that the evaluation of the test results is still underway. Due to space limitations and safety concerns, Japan has previously conducted missile tests in the territories of the United States, a treaty ally, and Australia, a top Japanese defense partner where vast training grounds are available. Tuesday's first domestic missile test underscores Japan's push toward a more self-sufficient military and its acquisition of strike-back capabilities as a deterrence to China's increasingly assertive naval activity in regional seas. Japan is also concerned about growing joint military exercises around Japanese coasts between China and Russia. Japan and Russia, a northern neighbour to Hokkaido, have territorial disputes. Japan, under its pacifist Constitution, used to limit the use of force for self-defense only, but has taken a major break from that policy in 2022 when it adopted the ongoing five-year security strategy that names China as the biggest strategic challenge and calls for a closer Japan-U.S. alliance. Japan is currently working to deploy long-range cruise missiles, including Tomahawks purchased from the U.S., beginning later this year. Japan is also developing Type 12 surface-to-ship missiles with a range of about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles), 10 times that of a Type 88. The truck-mounted Type 88 guided missile, developed by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, have a range of about 100 kilometers (62 miles). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Japan is also preparing to build a missile-firing range on uninhabited Minamitorishima, the country's easternmost island in the western Pacific, an area where two Chinese aircraft carriers were seen operating together for the first time earlier this month.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
44 minutes ago
- Business Standard
RS Secretariat verifies 44 MPs' signatures to remove HC Judge Yadav
The Rajya Sabha secretariat has verified the signatures of 44 of the 55 MPs who had signed a notice to bring a motion for the removal of Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Yadav over his "hate speech" even as Kapil Sibal and nine others were yet to verify their signatures. Sibal, who has been vocal for early action on the notice, has claimed that he has not received any email from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, which confirmed having sent the same to his official email thrice during the past six months. He has questioned the need for verification of signatures and the delay in initiating the process in March when the notice was submitted on December 13, 2024. While 55 MPs have signed the notice for the removal of Justice Yadav, the signature of one of the MPs, Sarfaraz Ahmed, appears twice on the notice. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat is verifying how his signature appeared twice on the notice and whether they are forged. Ahmed, the JMM MP from Jharkhand, has already met Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on the issue and confirmed having signed only once and not twice, sources said. They also said the notice for removal of Justice Yadav, which was submitted by 55 opposition MPs, is undated and not addressed to anyone. The Constitution states that a judge can only be removed from service after both Houses of Parliament approve a motion with a two-thirds majority of the present members. Thereafter, the President has to grant approval to the same. Such a motion can be moved in the Rajya Sabha only after 50 MPs sign the same. For Lok Sabha, signatures of 100 MPs are needed. According to sources, Sibal, a former Union minister and now an Independent MP, is yet to verify his signature with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat even after three reminders on his official email in the last six months. "I have met Chairman Dhankhar several times but he has never raised the issue of verification of my signatures on the notice for the removal of Justice Yadav as I am the presenter and initiator of the entire process," Sibal told PTI. He also mentioned that the need for signature verification arises only when someone questions the signatures on the notice. He also questioned the delay and said the House chairman should accept or reject the notice and not delay the process. Sibal has been extremely vocal on the issue and has questioned the delay in the acceptance of the notice for removal of Justice Yadav by the Rajya Sabha chairman. He has said that such a judge should not be protected and has called for the removal of Justice Yadav for making communal remarks at an event last year. While he has also questioned the logic behind the six-month period taken for signature verification, sources point out at least 10 MPs were yet to verify their signatures before the Rajya Sabha Secretariat which has sent them reminders to do so on March 7, March 13, and May 1. Chidambaram said the physical document (notice) was shown to him for the first time on Tuesday for verification of his signature, which he has done. The MPs whose signatures have not been verified and were yet to respond to the email queries of the Rajya Sabha secretariat include AAP's Raghav Chadha and Sanjeev Arora, TMC's Sushmita Dev, Kerala Congress MP Jose K Mani, Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, G C Chandrasekhar and Faiyaz Ahmed. Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankar had already addressed the issue in the House during the last session and confirmed that the representation by MPs has to be verified and the process was underway. "I have taken all procedural steps, but I must share with you one concern that is engaging my attention. Of the 55 members, who signed the representation, a member's signature appears on two occasions and the member concerned has denied his signature. "I do not wish to get into this act which may graduate to culpability to a higher level. If the number is above 50, I will proceed accordingly. Most of the members have cooperated. Those members, who have not done so far, may please do it in response to the second mail sent to them. Then, the process will not be delayed at my level even for a moment," he told the House on March 21 this year. Rajya Sabha sources said the possibility of a criminal investigation by the Ethics Committee and the Privileges Committee into the notice seeking the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav in the House cannot be ruled out as the document bears "forged" signatures. Article 124 of the Constitution states, "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity." "Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4)," it adds.
