The Supreme Court issued notice on Monday to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on a petition filed by a 72-year-old woman seeking directions to the DGCA and airline companies to frame regulations to deal with passenger misconduct on aircraft.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud issued notice on the petition filed by the victim of the Air India urination case and listed the matter for further hearing in the month of July.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioner, contended that DGCA failed to treat the petitioner with care and responsibility after an unruly passenger urinated on her following excessive alcohol consumption.

The Senior Counsel mentioned seven instances of passenger misconduct on board from 2014 to 2023, which were not dealt with properly by the concerned airline. 

He said on March 4, 2023, a similar incident occurred when a passenger, in an inebriated state, urinated on an American Airlines flight from New York to New Delhi. The flight operator informed Air Traffic Control, which then alerted the Central Industrial Security Force, leading to the arrest of the individual upon disembarking, he added.

The petitioner prayed the Apex Court to issue directions to both the Union of India and the DGCA, so as to ensure that CAR norms were adhered to the highest standards laid down internationally.

The petitioner sought directions to the DGCA and airline companies to comply with legal requirements of SoPs by airline crew and staff during such incidents.

The petitioner further asked the top court of the country to issue directions for the media, asking it to postpone reportage of the pending criminal case in relation to the current incident.

On November 26, 2022, a fellow passenger who was in an inebriated state had urinated on the petitioner during an international flight. The incident was brought to light after the woman wrote a letter to the Chairperson of the Tata Group, which later got space in the media.

Accused Shankar Mishra was arrested by the Delhi Police in Bengaluru on January 6, 2022. Wells Fargo, which was Mishra’s employer, subsequently released a statement that the allegations against him were “deeply disturbing,” leading to his dismissal from the job.

The High Court of Delhi had directed the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in March to constitute an appellate committee within two weeks to hear Mishra’s appeal against the order designating him as an ‘unruly passenger’ and banning him from flying for four months.

A local court in Delhi on Friday refused to grant bail to Shankar Mishra, who was arrested earlier this month for allegedly urinating on a 70-year-old fellow passenger on board an Air India flight in November last year.

Additional Sessions Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla, after noting that the investigating officer was not present for hearing, adjourned the bail petition for hearing on Monday.  

The court also took in view the fact that Advocate Ankur Mahindro, Counsel of the complainant, was not supplied with a copy of the bail petition.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, appearing for Mishra, opposed the adjournment. He further sought interim bail, stating that the absence of the investigating officer was not a fair reason for adjournment.

Gupta requested the court to list the matter for 2 pm today, so that Mahindro could go through the bail application.
However, the ASJ said he would hear the matter on Monday.

Mishra, former employee of Wells Fargo, is currently in judicial custody after Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg denied him bail on January 11.

The accused had allegedly urinated on a 70-year-old co-passenger in the business class of an Air India flight from New York to Delhi on November 26, in an inebriated condition. Delhi Police arrested Mishra from Bengaluru on January 6.

The incident came to light after a letter written by the victim to the Tata Group Chairperson, was made public.

Wells Fargo had recently fired him after noting that allegations against him were “deeply disturbing”.

A statement was also released by Mishra’s lawyers, which claimed that he had paid an agreed compensation amount to the woman on November 28, but the same was returned to him by the woman’s daughter, almost a month later on December 19.

On January 8, the court had refused to send Mishra to police custody, but remanded him to 14 days judicial custody.

The court had observed that the mere fact that there was public pressure should not sway the investigation in the case and that Mishra’s police custody would not be required.