Disposed¶34

Nivedita Sharma & Anr. v. 1. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4844/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nivedita Sharma & Anr. v. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors., W.P.(C) 4844/2021, Delhi HC, decided 08.04.2025 (Sachin Datta, J.). Alleged non-provision of proper meals and emergency medical supplies on Air India 16-hour non-stop Delhi–San Francisco flight of 11.11.2020; DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements Section 2 Series X Part III invoked; AirSewa alternate-remedy/maintainability objection raised but not decided; petition converted into a grievance for MoCA to act upon with written intimation to petitioners; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 (Ministry of Civil Aviation) to consider the present petition itself as a complaint/grievance, take appropriate action as deemed warranted in accordance with law, and communicate the outcome to the petitioners under written intimation. ¶34

Nivedita Sharma & Anr. Vs 1. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.3 (Air India Limited) failed to serve proper meals and provide adequate medical arrangements/emergency medicines to the petitioners onboard the 16-hour non-stop international flight of 11.11.2020, as alleged, in purported violation of DGCA regulations. +2 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the necessity to provide proper redressal to the grievances raised by the petitioners, the Court directed respondent no.1 (Ministry of Civil Aviation) to consider the present petition itself as a complaint/grievance, to duly consider it and take appropriate action thereon as deemed warranted in accordance with law, under written intimation to the petitioners.

¶33

Key takeaways

On the aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of; if aggrieved by the outcome of the exercise, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available under law.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 4844/2021 (Delhi High Court, Sachin Datta, J., 08.04.2025): Two business-class passengers alleged that Air India Ltd. (R3) provided no proper meals throughout a 16-hour non-stop New Delhi–San Francisco flight of 11.11.2020 — one petitioner being diabetic and the other on blood-pressure medication — and that basic emergency medicines were unavailable onboard, in purported violation of Section 2 Series X Part III of the Civil Aviation Requirements; respondents pointed to COVID-19-era catering SOPs and grievance portals including AirSewa. Without adjudicating the merits or the maintainability objection, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Ministry of Civil Aviation (R1) to treat the petition itself as a complaint/grievance, take appropriate action as warranted under law, and intimate the outcome in writing; the petitioners remain free to pursue further remedies if dissatisfied.

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4844/2021

¶4

NIVEDITA SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Parth Kaushik, Adv. alongwith petitioner-in-person.

¶5

versus

¶6

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocates for UoI. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Amit Mishra, Ms. M. Goyal and Mr. Shivam Goel, Advocates for R3. Mr. Harish Malik, Adv. for R4. Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Ayush Puri, Mr. Sultan Haider Jafri and Ms. Archita Mahlawat, Advocates for R5.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 08.04.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners in the context of the alleged harassment/ difficulties faced by the petitioners while onboard a flight operated by the respondent no.3 (Air India Limited) from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, India to San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, USA on 11.11.2020.

¶10

It is submitted that the petitioners who were travelling in the business class section of the said flight had to suffer immensely on account of the fact that throughout the duration of the 16 hours non-stop flight, the respondent no.3, without any prior intimation, did not serve any proper meals. Instead,

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:41:34

¶12

the petitioners were informed that they would only be served one small prepacked snack packet and a hot meal towards the end of the 16 hour flight.

¶13

It is submitted that the petitioner no.1, who is a diabetic patient, is required to eat proper meals, and also take regular medication on account of her medical condition. The petitioner no.2 also takes certain medication on account of his medical condition related to blood pressure.

¶14

It is submitted that despite the petitioners informing the flight crew about their predicament, the flight crew was apathetic and did not properly redress the difficulties of the petitioner.

¶15

It is further submitted that at request of the petitioners, while a small meal was initially served to them by the respondent no.3 / Air India Limited, the petitioners after some time developed certain medical issues for which also the arrangements were hopelessly inadequate and even basic emergency medicines were not available onboard the aircraft. The petitioners allege that the same is in violation of the extant regulations issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA / respondent no.2) pertaining to provision of medical supplies in aircraft pursuant under Section 2 Series X Part III of the Civil Aviation Requirements.

¶16

Accordingly, it is sought that an adequate mechanism be set up to review the quality and quantity of the food served to flight passengers, particularly, on long haul flights.

¶17

In the counter-affidavit dated 26.08.2021 filed on behalf of respondent no.3, the allegations raised by the petitioner have been denied. The said respondent has also questioned the maintainability of the present petition inasmuch as the petitioners have filed the present petition without availing the equally efficacious remedy of filing a complaint on ‘AirSewa’

¶18

¶19

portal which is a well-established grievance redressal mechanism for flight passengers.

¶20

In the counter-affidavit dated 24.01.2022 filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 (DGCA) it has been brought out that the DGCA, vide order dated 26.05.2020 issued certain guidelines/ Standard Operating Protocol (SOP) to be followed by airlines and passengers in the context of the prevailing situation on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic. It is pointed out that the said SOP was amended vide letter no. AV.29017/5(II)/2020-DT dated 27.08.2020 issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (respondent no.1) which, inter alia, records the amended provisions of the SOP as under:-

¶21

“Airlines, private aircraft and charter flight operators operating flights on international sectors may serve hotmeals and limited beverages as per the standard practices subject to strict compliance with the following conditions:

¶22

i.In all classes, tray set-up, plates and cutlery will be completely disposable with no re-use, or cleaned and disinfected retables will be used.

¶23

ii. Used disposable trays/ crockeries/ cutleries shall not be re-used. Used retables shall be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected before re-use.

¶24

iii. In all classes, tea/ coffee/ alcoholic and non alcoholic beverage services will be in disposable cans/ containers/ bottles/ glasses. There will be no pouring service and beverages will be served in single use disposable units.

¶25

iv. All used disposable and rotable meal trays/ plates/ cutleries/ beverages bottles/ cans/ glasses will be disposed off in the trash bags/ carts by the crew, at the end of the meal service.

¶26

v. Crew shall wear a fresh set of gloves for every meal/ beverage service

¶27

vi. The passengers would be informed of the above practices for strict compliance before the start of catering services by way of passenger announcements.”

¶28

It is also averred in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:41:34

¶31

no.2 (DGCA) that there are a number of grievance redressal portals where grievances of the kind raised by the petitioner in the present petition can be agitated. In this regard, reference may be made to the averments made in paragraph 3 (xiv.) of the counter-affidavit which reads as under:-

¶32

“xiv. That the contents of para 3(xiv) are wrong and vehemently denied. It is denied that the Answering Respondent does not a proper mechanism in place for grievance redressal. It is submitted that there are a number of Grievance redressal portals which are online portals such as CPGRAMS, PMO (PG), Air Sewa and even the grievances are being received also through emails. Since the Petitioner did not raise any grievance against the Respondent No.3 to the answering Respondent, there was no opportunity for the answering respondent to conduct its own investigation and inquiry. The Ministry of Civil Aviation including the Answering Respondent receive a number of complaints through all these portals and are being handled for redressal as per existing procedure and law.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid, while taking note of the necessity to provide a proper redressal to the grievances raised by the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1 (Ministry of Civil Aviation) to consider the present petition itself as a complaint/grievance which may be duly considered and appropriate action thereon (as may be deemed warranted in accordance with law) under written intimation to the petitioner.

¶34

With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of.

¶35

Needless to say, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the outcome of the aforesaid exercise, they shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies, as may be available under law.

¶36

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶37

APRIL 8, 2025/ uk

¶38

Nivedita Sharma & Anr. v. 1. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nivedita Sharma & Anr. v. 1. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunita Popli Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav Meena Vs Central Information Commission

K.G.Somani & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Mohd Murtaza Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Bushra for on Behalf of Aman Gul Vs Union of India, & Ors.

Ms New Gold Star Enterprises Vs the Commissioner Dsgst & Anr.

Assise Thankappan Vs Magic Bus India Foundation & Ors.

Jfc Finance India Limited Vs Arvind Garg Liquidator & Ors.

Gaurav Meena Vs Central Information Commission

Rishi Jindal Vs Central Information Commission

Sumeet Nagpal Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Ors.

Santosh Kr Shiva Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.