Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Jan 20: India’s aviation regulator the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on Friday imposed a fine of ₹30 lakh on Air India, in connection with the urination incident. It also imposed a fine of ₹3 lakh on the director of in-flight services of Air India for “failing to discharge her duties.” The DGCA also suspended the pilot-in-command for three months.
Air India, reacting to DGCA’s imposition of the fine, said it respectfully acknowledges the gaps in reporting with respect to the incident and that relevant steps were being taken to address the issues. “We acknowledge gaps in our reporting, and we’re taking steps to address them,” the airline said.
Air India further said the airline is strengthening crews’ awareness about policies on handling incidents involving unruly passengers. “Air India is committed to stand by the safety and well-being of our passengers,” it added.
A female senior citizen passenger had the most traumatic flight when a heavily inebriated co-traveller, Shankar Mishra, allegedly urinated over her on an Air India flight from New York to Delhi on November 26 which took off at 12.30 p.m. (Local time). Both the woman and the intoxicated man, were travelling in business class.
The airline had allowed him to walk scot-free when the flight landed in Delhi, instead of reporting him to the CISF and the DGCA. Mishra was later arrested in Bengaluru after the Delhi Police formed four teams and deployed them across three cities. A few days later, in a strange twist, the lawyers of Mishra told a Delhi court that their client never peed on the complainant. They further alleged that the woman “herself urinated”.
Air India on Thursday had slammed a four-month flying ban on Mishra. “The independent three-member internal committee under the Chairmanship of a former District Judge has concluded that Shankar Mishra is covered under the definition of unruly passenger and is banned from flying for a period of four months as per the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR),” the airline said.
This means he would be banned from all the airlines under the Air India group — Air India, Air India Express, AIX Connect as well as Vistara. It had earlier barred him flying for 30 days pending the internal committee enquiry. “We’re also strengthening our crews’ awareness of and compliance with policies on handling of incidents involving unruly passengers,” Air India said in a statement on Friday.
The incident came to the notice of the DGCA only on January 4 and the latest actions are for violations of various norms.
Shankar Mishra had walked away when the flight reached India. On November 27, the woman wrote to the Air India group chairman about the horrid incident. Air India filed a police complaint only on January 4 claiming it didn’t go to the police as it felt both sides had “settled the matter.” He was arrested by the Delhi Police two days later, six weeks after the incident.
On January 6, The DGCA had issued a show-cause notice to the Accountable Manager of Air India, the Director of in-flight Services of Air India, and all the pilots and cabin crew members of that flight as to why enforcement action should not be taken against them for dereliction of their regulatory obligations. They were given two weeks’ time to submit their reply. The Tata group-owned airline submitted its reply on Friday morning.
Shankar Mishra has denied all the charges against him and claimed that the woman “urinated on herself”. The allegations have been dismissed by the woman as “completely false and concocted and by their very nature are disparaging and derogatory”.
Earlier this month, Tata Group Chairman N Chandrasekaran admitted that Air India’s response to the incident should have been “much swifter.” His statement followed an apology by Air India CEO Campbell Wilson who informed the airline was reviewing its “policy on service of alcohol in flight.”
After Air India’s decision to ban Shankar Mishra, his legal team said they disagreed with the committee’s findings and are already in the process of appealing this decision in accordance with the DGCA CAR for Unruly Passengers.
Mishra’s advocates Ishanee Sharma and Akshat Bajpai said, “We respect the authority and mandate of the Internal Inquiry Committee, but we disagree with their findings and are already in the process of appealing this decision in accordance with the DGCA CAR for Unruly Passengers.”
His lawyers said, “We would particularly like to point out that the Internal Inquiry Committee’s ruling hinges upon their incorrect understanding of the layout of the Aircraft.” “When the Committee could not find an adequate explanation as to how the accused could have urinated on the complainant sitting on seat 9A without also affecting the passenger on Seat 9C, it has erroneously gone on to assume that there was a seat 9B in the business class in the aircraft and imagined that the accused could have stood at this imaginary seat and urinated on the complainant on seat 9A. However, there is no seat 9B in the business class on the craft – only seats 9A and 9C,” the statement said.
Lawyers said based on these unfounded and clearly incorrect conjectures, the Committee has essentially manufactured a possibility that the accused had committed the alleged act. “This finding is particularly surprising considering that there were two aviation experts on the committee. We maintain the innocence of the accused and have full faith in the judicial system of the country,” lawyers added.
“The independent 3-member Internal Committee under the chairmanship of ex-District Judge has concluded that Shankar Mishra is covered under the definition of “unruly passenger” and banned from flying for 4 months as per relevant provisions of Civil Aviation Requirements,” said an Air India spokesperson on Thursday.
Air India has also shared a copy of the Internal Committee report with the DGCA and will also be intimating other airlines operating in the country,” a Spokesperson of Air India said. Delhi Police had arrested Shankar Mishra from Bengaluru on January 6 and presently he is in Judicial Custody in Delhi. The Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi’s Patiala House Court had also denied him bail in the matter.
