Deoghar Airport Case : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Jharkhand's Plea Against MPs Nishikant Dubey & Manoj Tiwari

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 18) reserved its judgment in the plea filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the Jharkhand High Court's decision to quash an FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, and others in the 2022 Deoghar Airport case.

The FIR, lodged in September 2022, alleged that the respondents threatened and coerced Air Traffic Control (ATC) officials to permit the take-off of a private aircraft in violation of safety regulations. The FIR invoked Sections 336 (endangering life or personal safety), 447 (criminal trespass), and 448 (house trespass) of the IPC along with Sections 10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act, 1934.

The High Court had quashed the FIR on the grounds that it was filed without the requisite complaint or sanction under the Aircraft Act. It held that when a special law provides for specific punishments, IPC provisions could not be invoked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan indicated that the court would modify the High Court's judgment to allow the material collected during the investigation to be submitted to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). It noted that the DGCA could consider the material and determine if a complaint under the Aircraft Act could be filed.

Justice Oka stated, “We will not interfere with this order. We will say that whatever the material collected be placed before the Director General. Now the court has said you cannot investigate. So still we are prepared to permit you to place whatever material gathered before the Director General of Civil Aviation. He will consider whether it can be used in the complaint. We will not disturb that part of the order by which offence under Aircraft Act is quashed. Nothing prevents the Director from carrying out further investigation”

The state has argued that prior sanction under Sections 10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act was not required for investigating the incident.

Justice Oka observed, “As far as Aircraft Act is concerned, cognizance cannot be taken unless complaint is filed.” The Counsel for the state submitted that the required complaint under Section 12B of the Aircraft Act has not been filed as the case is at the investigation stage. Justice Oka to state, “Now you can't file it because there is quashing order. The problem is you should have gone to the High Court and said that you will file a complaint.”

The FIR also invoked provisions of the IPC. The state contended that the High Court erred in holding that the Aircraft Act superseded the IPC and argued that IPC provisions could still apply.

Justice Oka questioned the application of Section 336, asking, “Where did they endanger lives? All that they and the pilot are saying is permit us to fly. If he had taken off the aircraft or made an attempt to take off, then 336 will apply.” He also questioned the applicability of Section 447, stating, “And how criminal trespass will apply? Where is the prohibition (to enter ATC)? Where does intimidation come in?”

The state argued that the ATC room was a protected area and that the respondents created pressure on the ATC staff. Justice Oka responded, “There is no intention to commit any offence. All that they are saying is permit us to fly, and the officers told them it can't be done.”

The bench observed that offenses under the Aircraft Act were primarily applicable. Justice Oka stated, “All offences under Aircraft Act will apply. We will make that modification in the impugned judgement. The material collected can be used by the officer who is authorized to file a complaint under section 12B of the Aircraft Act. We are not going into whether offences under the Aircraft Act have been made out. We will leave that question open. They have to file a complaint, make out a case.”

With these observations, the judgment was reserved.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 7844/2023

Case Title – State of Jharkhand v. Nishkant Dubey