[ad_1]
Air India can operate non-scheduled relief and rescue flights on international routes with seat reservation centre until the 6th of June, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered, partially modify the Bombay high court order of May 22, which had been entrusted to the national company to keep the middle seat vacant, while flying home Indians stranded abroad.
A bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), SA Bobde extended the freedom of Air India to fill the middle seats of the flights of rescue after taking into account the difficulties that the passengers, including families, could face if the center of the passenger seats are empty.
“We are of the opinion that the petitioner, Air India, should be allowed to operate non-scheduled flights with the middle seats in reserve until June 6,” the top court said.
Air India and the central government rushed to the apex court on Sunday seeking a stay on the Bombay high court order.
The superior court sent the matter to the Bombay high court to pass an appropriate interim order on June 2, which is the next date of the hearing of the case in the high court. Air India will have to comply with the interim order of the supreme court of Bombay, while operating non-scheduled flights after 6 June.
“However, after that (June 6) Air India will operate non-scheduled flights, in accordance with the interim order to be passed by the Bombay high Court”, the superior court of justice affirmed.
During Monday’s hearing, the apex court was critical of Air India’s logic to operate international flights without maintaining the center of the seats vacant.
“You must be worried about the health of the citizens and not about the health of the commercial airlines,” CJI Bobde said the solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, who acted for Air India and the central government.
The court also ordered the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is free to alter any of the rules during the pendency of the matter in the interest of public health and the safety of the passenger rather than commercial considerations.
The petitioner before the high court, Deven with yogesh Kanani, who is a pilot of Air India itself, has pointed out that operating flights without saving the half of the seats vacant was in violation of the circular issued by the DGCA, on the 23rd of March.
Air India had contended that the circular of March 23, only applies to scheduled domestic flights and no scheduled international flights. In addition, it was also argued on the part of Air India that the March 23 circular has been replaced by a circular issued on May 22 for which there is no express mandate to keep the middle seat vacant.
The solicitor general Tushar Mehta has impressed the Supreme Court of the difficulties that passengers may face if the middle seat reservations are cancelled. He told the court that a third of the passengers that are expected to be carried by non-scheduled flights, would be stranded in foreign airports if the high court order was not stayed.
“According to Mr Mehta, this (supreme court of Bombay order) has resulted in a great amount of anxiety and the difficulties arising from the lack of adequate housing, money, etc., in foreign airports. On the other hand, in some cases, the travel plans of families that travel together has been interrupted because those who are in families that had middle seats has to be unloaded,” the Supreme Court noted in its order.
The central government also pointed out the difficulties to convince the airport authorities of foreign nations for the disembarkation of passengers on the basis of an order issued by a court in India. In addition, it was also stated that to keep the middle seat unoccupied does not help much to prevent the transmission of the coronavirus.
“How can you say that it’s not going to affect anyone? Outside (of the aircraft), there must be a social distancing of at least 6 feet. Does the Virus know that it is in the plane and is not supposed to infect?,” the court questioned.
The bank, which also includes the judges AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, noted that there should be no distinction between international and domestic flights when it comes to the adherence of social distancing of the rules.
“There should be a difference (between international and domestic flights). It is common sense that to maintain the social distance is important,” the court noted.
.
[ad_2]
