Lawyer moves Supreme Court seeking suspension of Air India Boeing fleet
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
Globe and Mail
11 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. Supreme Court sides with Trump over deportation of migrants to South Sudan
The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called 'third countries' where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation 'due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.' The court said that Murphy should now 'cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.' 'The Supreme Court's ruling rewards the government for violating the injunction and delaying implementation of the remedy the district court ordered,' said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs. 'Eight men are now at imminent risk of deportation to perilous and unsafe conditions in South Sudan,' Realmuto said. Sudanese refugees brace for a new threat to life and limb Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, criticizing the court's actions. 'Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the majority on Thursday. 'I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed,' Kagan wrote in a brief opinion. Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-U.S. citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order 'remains in full force and effect.' Calling that ruling by the judge a 'lawless act of defiance,' the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its 'lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan,' and disrupted diplomatic relations. Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Sotomayor in a dissent called the court's June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction a 'gross abuse' of its power that now exposes 'thousands to the risk of torture or death.' After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there 'without the need for further procedures.' Murphy found that the administration's policy of 'executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims' likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Justice Department noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture.' The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
Winnipeg Free Press
13 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court clears way for deportation to South Sudan of several immigrants with no ties there
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the justices found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the court lifted his broader decision. The Trump administration has called the judge's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.' Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country.
Toronto Star
14 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Supreme Court to consider reviving evangelist's lawsuit over restrictions in small Mississippi town
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to revive a lawsuit from a man barred from evangelizing outside a small-town Mississippi amphitheater after authorities say he shouted insults at people over a loudspeaker. Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court.
