Air India Urination Case: Victim Moves Supreme Court Seeking Guidelines To Deal With In-Flight Passenger Misconduct

The 72-year-old victim in the Air India urination incident has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to DGCA and Airline companies to lay down SoPs and regulations to deal with incidents of passenger misconduct on board.

She claims that the crew coerced her to enter a “settlement” with the passenger who urinated on her and the DGCA failed to treat her with care and responsibility.

"The cabin crew initially asked the Petitioner to sit on the very same seat that was wet and smelled of urine...The Petitioner was told that the Pilot in- command had not sanctioned the use a fresh seat for the Petitioner as the Pilot was sleeping," the plea states.

It adds that whereas DGCA’s Cabin Safety Circular requires the airline to report to the DGCA such incidents of unruly behaviour of passengers and additionally submit a written report, cabin crew along with the Pilot in-command failed to alert the Air Traffic Controller regarding the incident.

The plea cites Rule 22 and 29 of the Aircraft Rules 1937 which provide that acts by any person on board an aircraft which constitutes assault, damage to property of any passenger or consumption of alcohol which can lead to jeopardizing other passengers as offenses which are to be dealt with very firmly. Petitioner says that framing of SoP is essential to ensure their compliance.

"This also requires that such incidents are reported duly to various authorities, that FIRs are registered and based on the categorization of the offense as Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3, punishments and penalties may be awarded and a hearing may be conducted by an internal committee. Significantly, there is absolutely no provision for a settlement or conciliation and also for ameliorative action to be taken to address the problems of the victim."

The plea also seeks postponement of reportage on such incidents, claiming that it undermines the rights of both the victim as well as the accused.

"Their rights to a free and fair trial have also been substantially affected due to a selective leaking of the AIR SEWA complaint of the Petitioner, the FIR and selective witness statements being released to the media to match specific narratives. An absence of clear guidelines for the media outlets on what requires reporting, whether they ought to make conjectures where matters are sub-judice, impact of media coverage which is not based on facts but statements that are not verified ends up impacting the victims as well as the accused."