Latest news with #AI-143
India.com
a day ago
- Politics
- India.com
Why Target Air India Only: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Airline Safety Audit
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the appointment of a retired apex court judge to investigate Air India's safety standards and other operational aspects, questioning the petitioner on why only one airline was singled out. 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.
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
"Why Target Air India Only": Supreme Court Junks Plea For Safety Audit
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear a plea to appoint a retired top court judge for examining Air India's safety practices among other aspects and asked the petitioner why target the airline that witnessed an "unfortunate tragedy". A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioner in-person Narendera Kumar Goswami to withdraw his PIL and asked him to move the appropriate forum in case of 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 want some regulatory mechanism in place, then why did you not make other airlines as party in your petition? Why only Air India?" the bench asked Goswami, a lawyer. The petitioner claimed to be a victim of "some unfortunate incident" with the airline. Justice Kant then told him, "We also travel every week and know what is the status. There was a tragedy, a very unfortunate one. This is not a time to run down an airline." Goswami in his PIL, which he filed in July, sought directions for constituting an independent committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine Air India's safety practices, maintenance procedures, and operational protocols, with a report to be submitted within three months. He also sought a direction for a comprehensive safety audit of Air India's entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), addressing deficiencies identified in the 2024 ICAO audit report, to be completed within six months. Additionally, Directorate General of Civil Aviation was sought to be directed to implement and enforce a transparent, publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents, including a centralized database, ensuring compliance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and international best practices. The PIL further sought a direction to Air India to provide compensation to the families of AI-171 crash victims in accordance with the Montreal Convention, 1999, and to offer ex-gratia payments or compensation to passengers of AI-143 for distress and inconvenience caused by the safety incident, as per applicable laws and industry standards. The London-bound Air India flight, Boeing Dreamliner 787-8, with 242 passengers and crew on board, crashed moments after taking off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad on the afternoon of June 12.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
'Why not all airlines?' SC junks plea for AI safety audit
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court rebuked an Air India passenger who moved the court on Friday for a safety audit of the airlines' entire fleet in the wake of AI-171 crash at Ahmedabad on June 12, saying it was unfair to target a single airline for a tragic incident. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The passenger had flown an Air India flight to Paris that experienced a fire incident five days before the Ahmedabad accident. Petitioner-advocate N K Goswami along with AI-143 flight passenger L P Goswami cited a series of incidents involving Air India flights to flag safety issues and sought a writ of mandamus from SC to address alleged "systemic safety lapses and deliberate negligence by Air India" which endangered passenger safety. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioner-lawyer, "Why only Air India? Why not all airlines? For deficiency in service of an individual airline, you can always approach the jurisdictional consumer forum, Directorate General of Civil Aviation or even the Union govt". Justice Kant said, "...Do not give the impression that you are filing this petition at the behest of a rival airline. If you are genuinely concerned about passenger safety, then file a PIL with all airlines, both domestic and international, as parties". "If they do not take any action, then we can step in," the bench said. Mathura-based scientist L P Goswami was on the AI-143 flight from Delhi to Paris on June 7. According to him, the aircraft experienced a fire incident due to electrical error, and it had to make an emergency landing at Sharjah where he remained grounded for 16 hours.
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Supreme Court junks plea seeking Air India safety audit after Ahmedabad plane crash
Agencies Air India flight (File Photo) The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear a plea to appoint a retired top court judge to examine Air India's safety practices among other aspects and asked the petitioner why target the airline that witnessed an "unfortunate tragedy". A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioner in-person, Narendera Kumar Goswami, to withdraw his PIL and asked him to move the appropriate forum in case of 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 want some regulatory mechanism in place, then why did you not make other airlines as party in your petition? Why only Air India?" the bench asked Goswami, a lawyer. The petitioner claimed to be a victim of "some unfortunate incident" with the airline. Justice Kant then told him, "We also travel every week and know what is the status. There was a tragedy, a very unfortunate one. This is not a time to run down an airline." Goswami in his PIL, which he filed in July, sought directions for constituting an independent committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine Air India's safety practices, maintenance procedures, and operational protocols, with a report to be submitted within three months. He also sought a direction for a comprehensive safety audit of Air India's entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), addressing deficiencies identified in the 2024 ICAO audit report, to be completed within six months. Additionally, Directorate General of Civil Aviation was sought to be directed to implement and enforce a transparent, publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents, including a centralized database, ensuring compliance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and international best practices. The PIL further sought a direction to Air India to provide compensation to the families of AI-171 crash victims in accordance with the Montreal Convention, 1999, and to offer ex-gratia payments or compensation to passengers of AI-143 for distress and inconvenience caused by the safety incident, as per applicable laws and industry standards. The London-bound Air India flight, Boeing Dreamliner 787-8, with 242 passengers and crew on board, crashed moments after taking off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad on the afternoon of June 12.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC junks PIL seeking safety audit, says Air India tragedy singled out
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear a plea to appoint a retired top court judge for examining Air India's safety practices among other aspects and asked the petitioner why target the airline that witnessed an "unfortunate tragedy". A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the petitioner in-person Narendera Kumar Goswami to withdraw his PIL and asked him to move the appropriate forum in case of 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 want some regulatory mechanism in place, then why did you not make other airlines as party in your petition? Why only Air India?" the bench asked Goswami, a lawyer. The petitioner claimed to be a victim of "some unfortunate incident" with the airline. Justice Kant then told him, "We also travel every week and know what is the status. There was a tragedy, a very unfortunate one. This is not a time to run down an airline." Goswami in his PIL, which he filed in July, sought directions for constituting an independent committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine Air India's safety practices, maintenance procedures, and operational protocols, with a report to be submitted within three months. He also sought a direction for a comprehensive safety audit of Air India's entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), addressing deficiencies identified in the 2024 ICAO audit report, to be completed within six months. Additionally, Directorate General of Civil Aviation was sought to be directed to implement and enforce a transparent, publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents, including a centralized database, ensuring compliance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and international best practices. The PIL further sought a direction to Air India to provide compensation to the families of AI-171 crash victims in accordance with the Montreal Convention, 1999, and to offer ex-gratia payments or compensation to passengers of AI-143 for distress and inconvenience caused by the safety incident, as per applicable laws and industry standards. The London-bound Air India flight, Boeing Dreamliner 787-8, with 242 passengers and crew on board, crashed moments after taking off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad on the afternoon of June 12.
