Capt Amit Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.

$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 13.04.2026
Judgment delivered on : 04.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on : As per Digital Signature~
+ LPA 595/2023
CAPT AMIT KUMAR YADAV .....APPELLANT
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....RESPONDENTS
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Anshul Sehgal,
Advs.
For the Respondents : Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Akansha
Choudhary and Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advs.
for R1 and R2.
Ms. Charul Sarin, Adv. for R3.
Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Mr. Azeem
Samuel, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Mr.
Vaibhav Kharbanda, Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms.
Shrijeta Pratik, Advs. for R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This intra court appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 11.07.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 1 of 19

dated 04.12.2017 and 18.07.2018 (impugned orders) passed by the Joint
Director General, Director General of Civil Aviation and Director General
of Civil Aviation (respondent no. 2) respectively. Vide the Impugned Orders,
the pilot license of appellant was suspended for a period of three months as
per Regulation 8.1 of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) for testing positive
for blood alcohol content in pre-flight breath analyzer test (BA Test).
2. The appellant is a pilot employed with Tata SIA Airlines Ltd.
(hereinafter respondent no. 4/Vistara), which is running its Airline by the
name of ‘Vistara Airlines’. The appellant was scheduled to operate a flight
bearing No. 'UK 720' on 18.11.2017 from Kolkata to New Delhi, along with
his senior, Captain Gurpreet Nijjer (hereinafter Capt. Nijjer). The estimated
time of departure of the said flight was 07:10 am, so the reporting time of
the petitioner was scheduled at around 06:00 am on 18.11.2017 at the
Kolkata Airport.
3. The appellant reported at the Kolkata Airport and contacted
paramedic nurse at 06:11 am for pre-flight breath analyser test as per the
Regulations provided under CAR. The appellant was tested positive in the
BA Test. The equipment used for conducting BA Test showed a reading of
0.004% alcohol in the blood of appellant.
4. The case of appellant as put forth by Mr Sanjeev Kumar is that he had
not consumed any alcohol, sedative, narcotic or any stimulant drug. So, he
was stunned when he got to know that his BA test was found positive.
Between the first and second BA test, a control test was conducted on Capt.
Nijjer as provided in CAR. After a while, a second BA test was conducted
on the appellant which also turned out to be positive. Again, the equipment
showed a reading of 0.004% blood alcohol content in blood of the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 2 of 19

It is thereafter, the appellant was asked by Vistara Airlines to submit his
pilot license for necessary action and he was also removed from flying roster
following the procedure under the CAR.
5. The case of appellant is that after being removed from flying roster,
he immediately visited two NABL accredited laboratories to undergo blood
and urine tests for detecting presence of blood alcohol as he was
apprehending that the equipment used for conducting BA Tests was prone to
making errors. According to the appellant, the tests conducted were negative
and the appellant sent an e-mail dated 21.11.2017 at 10:54 am to the Vistara
Airlines informing them that he had undergone blood and urine tests at two
NABL certified laboratories to prove his innocence. It was the case of the
appellant that the concerned officials of the Vistara Airlines sent the letter
dated 22.11.2017 to the Joint Director General and Director of Air Safety of
DGCA respectively whereby they requested them to consider the BA test
result of the appellant as negative, in view of the negative result of the blood
and urine test of the appellant. It follows that the Vistara Airline suspended
the appellant from his official duty for a period of three months w.e.f.,
18.11.2017 to 16.02.2018, vide letter dated 23.11.2017.
6. Mr Kumar stated that as no reply was received from DGCA to
representations dated 22.11.2017, the Vistara Airline on behalf of the
appellant prepared a representation/appeal dated 30.11.2017 before the Joint
Director General of DGCA. The request was made that the appellant may be
allowed to fly again and his license may not be suspended as the equipment
manufactured on which the BA test was conducted was prone to errors and
the negative results of blood and urine test also indicated that there was no
alcohol in the blood of the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 3 of 19

7. Suffice to state, the appeal of the appellant was also dismissed vide
order dated 18.07.2018, pursuant to a personal hearing granted to the
appellant on 25.06.2018. The case of the appellant before the learned Single
Judge was relying upon the results of blood and urine test conducted by two
NABL accredited laboratories and by also contending that the test conducted
in those laboratories are more reliable in comparison with the BA test. It was
also contended that the DGCA has not controverted to the results of blood
and urine test, neither in the impugned orders nor in its counter affidavit.
8. It was also the contention that the positive result in BA test was a
false positive, which had occurred due to error in the equipment by which
BA test was conducted. It was stated that the operating manual of equipment
used for conducting BA Test itself states that there is a possibility of error to
the maximum extent of 5 mg/ 100 ml i.e., 0.005%.
9. The case of the appellant was also the procedure which had been
followed for undertaking the BA test was not proper, inasmuch as a control
test was needed to be done as per Regulation 6.5 of CAR between the first
BA test and second BA test. It was alleged that the control test which was
conducted on Capt. Nijjer was not conducted properly since it is provided in
the operating manual of equipment used for conducting BA test that the
minimum exhale volume for a successful test must be 1.0 litre, but in the
case of Capt. Nijjer, the exhale volume was only 0.79 litre. So, the exhale
volume blown in the equipment was less, but the equipment did not show
any error which raises a serious question on the working of the equipment.
10. The case was also that as per Clause 4.1 of CAR, which is in
consonance with Rule 24 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, the same clearly states
that there should be no blood alcohol in breath, blood or urine analysis of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 4 of 19

pilot / new member. This means that the blood and urine tests analysis can
also be conducted for checking blood alcohol content. A reference has been
given to a similar policy for conducting two BA tests in the Indian Railways.
11. It is also stated that the Indian Railways stopped conducting second
BA test and instead of it, they resorted to medical examination of subject
person before issuing a penalty charge sheet. A reference is also made to the
Aviation Laws and permissible blood alcohol content in UK and USA. To
this the case of the respondent/DGCA was that the DGCA has adopted CAR
in compliance with the international standards set for Civil Aviation. It was
stated that ICAO is an International body which has set out some
International standards and recommended practices for civil aviation. Every
country, which is a signatory to the Chicago Convention is bound to follow
these international standards and recommended practices. It is also stated
that India does not tolerate any negligence from pilots or other crews.
12. A reference was also made to the fact that the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) does not permit a pilot to fly if more than 0.02%
alcohol content is found in his blood in the BA tests. In other words, it is the
submission of Ms.Anjana Gosain that these countries allow certain level of
alcohol in blood of pilots but the DGCA, which is the governing body of
civil aviation in India, does not allow even 0.001 % alcohol in blood of
pilots before flying.
13. On the other hand, Ms Anjana Gosain, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents made a reference to the CAR which has been made
under Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. It was stated by her that the Rule
24 of the 1937 Rules prohibits any operating member of crew, including
pilot, from consuming any psychoactive substance, whether on flight or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 5 of 19

before flight. It was submitted that the CAR has been issued by DGCA
under Rule 133A of 1937 Rules so as to ensure compliance of the Rule 24.
The rules have been amended from time to time. As per CAR, 2015, which
was in force at the time of incident i.e. on 18.11.2017, it was mandatory for
every pilot to undergo the pre-flight BA test.
14. The respondent nos.1-3 contested the case of the appellant, that the
blood and urine tests should be mandatorily done before each flight by
stating that the same is neither feasible nor practical. It was the case of the
DGCA, as per CAR, it is not mandatory to conduct blood and urine tests of a
pilot before every flight. It is usual practice that blood and urine tests of a
pilot are only conducted when an accident takes place. It was also the case
of respondent nos.1-3 that a lot of challenges would arise for Airlines if
DGCA mandates that blood and urine tests also have to be conducted before
every flight. The very first challenge before the Airlines would be to create
infrastructure at every Airport where such blood and urine tests would have
to be conducted. These tests would have to be conducted by a third party and
not by the staff of Airlines since, then, there could be chances of allegations
or disputes against the Airlines or vengeance or foul play by them.
15. It was also stated as alcohol was detected in BA test, the same was a
sufficient ground to put the pilot off the flying roaster and for initiating
necessary action against him. The DGCA has represented that BA tests are
nd
reliable. The stand of the respondents was also that procedure of 2 test to
st
be mandatorily conducted when the 1 test comes to be positive and control
st nd
test in between the 1 and 2 test has also been placed so as to make the BA
test completely reliable and remove any possibility of error. So, we find that
the Airlines also appeared before the learned Single Judge and supported the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 6 of 19

impugned action. The learned Single Judge has by legally analysing the
provisions of the CAR and also the factual aspects concluded as under:-
“47. To rebut these contentions, Ms. Anjana Gosain,
learned counsel for DGCA stated that there was no
error in the equipment and the said fact can be
corroborated by the fact that other crew members of
Vistara Airlines, who had reported at that Airport on
the same day, had also undergone BA Test using the
same equipment only and no other person
complained of such false positive. It was her
contention that if the equipment was faulty, there
would have been several complaints on that day
itself. She further stated that the procedure of control
test and second BA Test as provided in CAR is
enacted so as to rule out any possibility of error made
by the equipment used for measuring blood alcohol
content of crew members. Therefore, she stated that
there was no error in the equipment and the
Petitioner was having blood alcohol content on the
day of the incident which was rightly measured by the
equipment.
48. This Court first needs to adjudicate that whether
the results of blood and urine tests undergone by
Petitioner can be relied upon or not. It was submitted
by learned counsel on behalf of Petitioner that DGCA
has not controverted the results of blood and urine
tests neither in its Counter Affidavit nor at the time of
final arguments. It is true that the counsel for DGCA
did not controvert the results of blood and urine tests
during the arguments. Even Vistara has not
controverted the results of blood and urine tests in its
affidavit but, it has been stated in its affidavit that the
same cannot be relied upon because any test results
subsequent to the BA Tests conducted at Airport are
irrelevant.
49. This Court is quite convinced with the averment
of Vistara since the presence of blood alcohol content
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 7 of 19

at the time of reporting at Airport before the flying
duty, has to be checked as per CAR. So, it is
mandatory that the blood alcohol content at that time
must be zero as stipulated in CAR. Also, on conjoint
reading of Para 4.3 and Para 6.1 of CAR, it is clear
that Airlines/operators have been imposed with the
duty to conduct pre-flight BA tests of pilots, crew
members and maintenance personnel before each
flight. Thus, since the duty of conducting pre-flight
BA Tests is upon the operator, so the blood and urine
tests, which were undergone by the Petitioner
himself, without any direction or reference from the
operator/Vistara Airlines and which were not
conducted by Vistara, results of such tests cannot be
considered by this Court. DGCA also rightly did not
rely upon them. If these blood and urine tests would
have been conducted by Vistara, then in that case,
these results might have been considered by this
Court in favour of the Petitioner, but, since the
Petitioner himself had undergone the same without
any such reference or direction of Vistara, the same
cannot be considered by this Court under any
circumstance.
xxx xxx xxx
51. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to
grant benefit of maximum margin error to the
Petitioner. The reason for not granting benefit of
margin of error is twofold. Firstly, it is observed that
the procedure provided in Para 6.5 of CAR rules out
the possibility of any error by the equipment. Para
6.5 of CAR states that in case positive result is
obtained in a pre-flight BA Test, then a second test
has to be conducted after an interval of 15-20
minutes. It further states that during this interval of
15-20 minutes, the crew member is allowed to wash
his face and rinse his mouth, if so desired by him. It
also lays down that a control test needs to be done
between the first test and second test so as to verify
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 8 of 19

the serviceability and correctness of the equipment.
Thus, this procedure is sufficient to rule out any
possibility of error by equipment. In view of the same,
it is observed by this Court that the equipment cannot
provide the same result after a gap of 15-20 minutes
if it was faulty. The outcome of same result in the
second BA Tests, after conducting a control test in
between, ensures that there was no error in the
equipment. If there would have been an error in the
equipment then it is very unlikely that the equipment
would have shown the same result i.e. 0.004% during
both the BA Tests. Secondly, Ms. Gosain had rightly
pointed out at the time of arguments that several tests
had taken place on the same date from the same
equipment and if the equipment would have been
faulty or making errors, then there would have been
other complaints too in this regard.
52. The Petitioner’s repeated claim was that the
results of BA Tests were false positives and that is
why no blood alcohol content was found in his blood
and urine tests. In this regard, learned Counsel for
Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Email
dated 27.02.2018 which is addressed from Vistara to
all its pilots. It was claimed by learned counsel for
Petitioner that in the said Email, Vistara had
admitted the fact of increase in false positives by the
equipment manufactured by Respondent No.3 and
due to this reason Vistara stopped using that
equipment. This Court has perused the Email dated
27.02.2018. It states that false positive results were
found on use of new model of Tayal Tech - Alcotruth
and it was decided that use of this model of Tayal
tech would be stopped completely. It has further been
stated in the Email dated 27.02.2018 that Vistara had
been using Respondent No.3’s manufactured
equipments since the inception and the number of
false positives were very few in last three years.
These miniscule numbers of false positives were seen
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 9 of 19

in all Airlines using equipments of different
manufacturers. It was also written in the said Email
that in order to cater to these false positive results,
the DGCA had incorporated robust positive test
confirmation procedure in CAR. Moreover, Mr.
Akshat Hansaria, learned counsel for Vistara had
also submitted that Vistara had used Tayal Tech
T1100 equipment for conducting BA Tests of
Petitioner. He had further submitted that Respondent
No. 3 had stopped production of this equipment, so in
order to bring uniformity in the equipment being used
by Vistara pan India, Vistara stopped use of the said
model. On a perusal of this Email and considering
the submissions made by learned counsel for Vistara,
it is clear that Vistara was talking about some other
model manufactured by Respondent No. 3 in the said
Email and not about the model which was used for
conducting BA Tests of Petitioner. Thus, reliance of
Petitioner upon this email is futile since it does not
support his case. Rather, this Email supported the
contention of DGCA that CAR has a procedure to
rule out false positives or any other error by the
equipment being used for conducting BA Tests.
53. Another contention of Petitioner is that the
Vistara Airlines should have also conducted the
blood and urine tests of the Petitioner. It was further
his contention that blood and urine tests should
particularly be done when a crew member tests
positive in BA Tests. It is his contention that the
Vistara Airlines itself knew about the number of false
positives which occur on use of the equipment
manufactured by Respondent No. 3, so blood and
urine tests of subject persons should also be
conducted. On the other hand, Ms. Anjana Gosain,
learned counsel for DGCA in her response submitted
that as per CAR or Rule 24 of 1937 Rules, it is not
mandatory for an operator/airline to conduct all
three tests i.e. breath, blood and urine analysis. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 10 of 19

was her contention that the word “or” has been used
in Rule 24 of 1937 Rules and thus, if the operator is
only conducting pre-flight BA Tests, then that is also
sufficient and there is no need to conduct blood or
urine tests. It was further her contention that the
usual practice is that the blood and urine tests would
be conducted in a case of accident.
54. As observed above, CAR has been issued under
Rule 133A of 1937 Rules for compliance of Rule 24 of
1937 Rules. Rule 24 clearly states that there shall be
no detectable blood alcohol in breath, blood or urine
analysis of a crew member. Thus, in terms of Rule 24,
blood alcohol content should not be found in any of
the analysis. So, as per Rule 24, it is not mandatory to
do every analysis and any one mode of analysis will
suffice. The CAR imposes a duty upon the operator of
only conducting BA Tests before every flight. The
CAR does not lay down anywhere the duty upon the
operators to conduct blood or urine tests before each
flight. Rather, only Para 10.1 of CAR imposes duty
upon Officer-in-Charge of Airport to conduct blood,
urine tests, etc. of crew members in the case of
accidents. So, the contention of Petitioner that his
blood and urine tests should also have been done
does not hold water. Further, this Court also does not
uphold the contention of Petitioner that DGCA gave a
wrong finding in Impugned Order dated 18.07.2018
that there is no provision in CAR for undertaking
blood test. A perusal of CAR shows that it only
imposes duty upon operator to conduct BA Test and
not blood or urine tests and hence, there is no error
in the finding of DGCA. Nonetheless, this Court is
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India under the present Petition and is
not exercising its jurisdiction as a Court of Appeal, so
it cannot adjudicate upon every finding of DGCA in
the Impugned Order and can only set aside or modify
any perversity or material irregularity in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 11 of 19

Impugned Orders.
55. As far as the other contention of Petitioner is
concerned that in view of cases of false positive
results, blood and urine tests of a crew member
should be conducted when he or she obtains a
positive result in BA Test, it also does not hold
ground in view of CAR. As stated above, the CAR
only imposes duty upon the operators/ airlines to
conduct pre-flight BA Tests and does not put any
obligation upon the operator to conduct blood and
urine tests in case of positive results in BA Tests.
Further, this Court agrees with the arguments made
by Ms. Gosain that conducting blood and urine tests
at an Airport before every flight will not be practical
and feasible. The Airlines will have to create
infrastructure at every Airport from wherever they
operate for conducting blood and urine tests of crew
members. This will add additional cost on the
operations of Airlines which will further burden them
unnecessarily. Thus, in view of this Court,
considering the infeasibility and impracticality of
conducting blood and urine tests at Airport by
operators, CAR does not anywhere put an obligation
upon operator to conduct blood and urine test and
that is why it only talks about BA Tests. In fact, in the
incidents of accidents also, the duty is not of the
operator to conduct blood and urine tests, but the
duty is imposed upon the Officer-in-Charge of
Airport to conduct these tests. With regard to the
aspect of false positive, CAR already has laid down
procedure so as to eliminate the possibility of false
positives. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that
Para 6.5 of CAR states that in case positive result is
obtained in a pre-flight BA Test, then a second test
has to be conducted after an interval of 15-20
minutes. It further states that during this interval of
15-20 minutes, the crew member is allowed to wash
his face and rinse his mouth if so desired by him. A
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 12 of 19

control test also needs to be done between the first
test and second test so as to verify the serviceability
and correctness of the equipment. Thereafter, second
test will be done in presence of a witness. Thus, there
are sufficient precautionary measures provided in
CAR so as to safeguard the crew members against the
unfortunate false positive results of BA Tests. In view
of this, this Court is of the opinion that this procedure
rules out the possibility of false positives to the
maximum extent. In the present case, each and every
step laid down in CAR was followed ideally by
Vistara Airlines and thus, the possibility of false
positive results is ruled out. Further, the Petitioner
has not challenged CAR in the present Petition, so the
contention of Petitioner that blood and urine tests
should be conducted when positive result is obtained
in BA Test cannot be entertained in the present
Petition as it will be out of scope of the present
Petition when the provisions of CAR have not been
challenged before this Court.
56. The Petitioner further claimed that the procedure
as prescribed in CAR was not duly followed since the
control test was not done properly and hence, the
whole procedure got vitiated. It was the argument of
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioner
that as per the operating manual of equipment, which
was used for conducting BA Test, the minimum
exhale volume should be 1.0 litre, but the exhale
volume in the control test of Capt. Nijjer was only
0.79 litre. Thus, the control test was not done
properly as all the instructions mentioned in
operating manual of equipment were not followed.
This Court is not satisfied with this argument of the
Petitioner. It is the view of this Court that the whole
purpose of conducting a control test was to verify the
serviceability of the equipment and the same was
verified when the equipment provided a result of
0.000% in the control test even when only 0.79 litre
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 13 of 19

exhale volume was input into the equipment. If the
equipment would have been faulty or would have
been making any error, then it would have given a
positive result in the control test also. But, since the
result of the control test was 0.000% only, it in turn
verified the serviceability of the equipment.
Thereafter, second BA Test of Petitioner was
conducted, which again gave the same result as the
result of first BA Test i.e. 0.004%. As pointed out
earlier, if there would have been any error in the
equipment then 0.000% output would not have been
generated in control test and then same output of
0.004% would not have been generated in second BA
Test. Thus, this miniscule default from the
instructions provided in operating manual of
equipment will not help the case of the Petitioner.
xxx xxx xxx
60. It is apprehension of Petitioner that he will be
prejudiced if he again becomes victim of false
positive results of pre-flight BA Tests and that is why
he is pursuing the present Writ Petition. As stated
hereinabove, CAR stipulates a procedure which is
capable of ruling out false positives. Thus, if any false
positive will occur in future, then due to the
procedure laid down in CAR, the same will be ruled
out by way of second BA Test and control test.
Further, it is also imperative to note that the present
Petition is pending since almost 5 years and no such
incident of false positive has occurred with the
Petitioner pendente lite. Thus, there are meager
chances that as alleged, any such incident of false
positive will take place with Petitioner in future.
61. Thus, the prayers sought in the present Petition
cannot be granted to the Petitioner in view of the fact
that he reported for his flying duty in violation of
provisions provided in CAR and 1937 Rules. This
Court is of the opinion that his license was rightly
suspended by DGCA for 3 months following the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 14 of 19

punishment provided in Para 8.1 of CAR. The job of a
pilot is a job of responsibility. When he is on duty, he
is carrying responsibility of the lives of the
passengers and crew members on board of his flight.
Any minute error by pilot can turn into a major
accident within seconds. Due to this huge
responsibility, CAR stipulates the permissible amount
of blood alcohol content as “zero”. The Petitioner
should have whole heartedly followed the provisions
of CAR and should not have reported for duty after
consuming alcohol. In view of the observations made
hereinabove, this Courts finds no reason to interfere
with the Impugned Orders, hence, the present
Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
16. Even before us, the counsel for the parties have made identical
submissions as were advanced before the learned Single Judge. We are of
the view that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge which we
have reproduced above, actually answers all the contentions raised by the
appellant before us. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge can
be summed up as under:-
i) Any test result subsequent to the BA test conducted at the airport
is irrelevant. The presence of blood alcohol content has to be
checked as per CAR. It is mandatory that the blood alcohol
content at that time must be zero as stipulated in CAR. On a
conjoint reading of paras 4.3 and 6.1 of the CAR, the
airline/operators have been imposed with the duty to conduct
pre-flight BA tests of pilots and crew before each flight. So, the
blood and urine tests which were undergone by the appellant
himself, without any direction or reference from the
operator/Vistara airlines and which were not conducted by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 15 of 19

Vistara, cannot be considered by the Court.
ii) DGCA has also rightly not relied upon the blood and urine test
results conducted after the BA test was found positive. If these
blood and urine tests would have been conducted by Vistara,
then in that case, these results might have been considered in
favour of the appellant. But it is not such a case.
iii) The plea of that the equipment had a possible maximum margin
error of /+/- 0.005% cannot be accepted for the reasons that
firstly, the procedure provided in Para 6.5 of CAR rules out the
possibility of any error by the equipment. Secondly, in a case
positive result is obtained in a pre-flight BA test, then a second
test has to be conducted after an interval of 15-20 minutes during
which the crew member is allowed to wash his face and rinse his
mouth, if so desired by him. It also lays down that a control test
needs to be done between the first test and second test so as to
verify the serviceability and correctness of the equipment.
Hence, the procedure is sufficient to rule out any possibility of
error by equipment.
iv) Several tests had taken place on the same date, from the same
equipment, and if the equipment would have been faulty or
making errors, then there would have been other complaints in
that regard, but no complaint had been received.
v) The only duty imposed upon operator is to conduct BA test and
not blood or urine test. Even the false positive results were found
on use of new model of Tayal Tech Alcotruth and it was decided
that use of this model of Tayal Tech would be stopped
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 16 of 19

completely. Vistara had been using respondent no.3's
manufactured equipments since the inception and the number of
false positives were very few in last three years. The reference
made in the e-mail was not about the model which was used for
conducting the BA test of the appellant. Thus, the reliance
placed by the appellant on the e-mail to show that there were
high numbers of false positive cannot be accepted.
17. Having noted the above reasons on which the learned Single Judge
has not found merit in the petition, we also note that the learned Single
Judge has also observed the scope of judicial review in a matter of this
nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to hold that it cannot
adjudicate upon every finding of the DGCA in the impugned orders, except
when such orders are highly perverse or there is material irregularity in the
impugned orders. In the end, the learned Single Judge did answer the
apprehension expressed by the appellant that he will be greatly prejudiced if
he again becomes a victim of false positive results of pre-flight BA test by
observing that the same can be ruled out by way of second BA test and
control test.
18. We must state that during the course of the hearing, the learned
counsel for the appellant had also suggested, in the eventuality, there is a
false positive, efforts must be made by the operator to carry out a urine and a
blood test, as according to him, such a blood test is only to obviate any
presence of alcohol in the blood/urine, as through medical standards, it has
been proved that traces of alcohol remain in urine for at least five days from
the date of consumption.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 17 of 19

19. It may also be stated that Ms. Gosain did make a submission in that
regard which has been noted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.28
of the impugned order which we reproduce as under:-
“28. Ms. Gosain further submitted that the contention
of Petitioner that blood and urine tests should be
mandatorily done before each flight is neither
feasible nor practical. It was submitted by Ms.
Gosain that as per CAR, it is not mandatory to
conduct blood and urine tests of a pilot before every
flight. It is usual practice that blood and urine tests of
a pilot are only conducted when an accident takes
place. It was stated that a lot of challenges will arise
for Airlines if DGCA mandates that blood and urine
tests are also have to be done before every flight. She
stated that the very first challenge before the Airlines
will be to create infrastructure at every Airport where
such blood and urine tests will be conducted. These
tests will have to be conducted by a third party and
not by the staff of Airlines since, then, there could be
chances of allegations or disputes against Airlines or
vengeance or foul play by Airlines. The Airlines will
have to make such an infrastructure so as to ensure
that there is no delay in collecting samples of blood
and urine as even delay of 5 minutes can affect the
outcome of test. The airlines will have to create cold
storage facility so as to store samples of blood of
pilots, which will later be sent to laboratories for
testing/analysis. It is further stated that these tests
being conducted before every flight will also impact
the health of pilots and will also make them more
vulnerable to diseases being spread through use of
syringes. It is neither economically nor operationally
feasible to have blood testing facility at each and
every Airport, helipad or temporary helipad etc.
Citing all these primary challenges, Ms. Gosain
stated that even after creating such infrastructure,
there will be chances that the result of blood and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 18 of 19

urine tests might get compromised, so due to these
reasons, DGCA has not made mandatory blood and
urine tests of pilots before every flight.”
20. This Court does not have the necessary expertise to comment on the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is for the
respondents to consider the pleas as advanced by the counsel for the
appellant as we find that presence of alcohol has serious consequences
including suspension, grounding of the pilot and eventually cancellation of
the license of the pilot. The consequences being serious, it is for the
respondents to decide whether such a procedure can be followed at the
specific request of the pilot on the spot, so that a pilot is not imposed with
serious penalties, even if, in a given case, he has not consumed alcohol and
has become a victim of a false positive.
21. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MAY 04, 2026 /rk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:49:36
LPA 595/2023 Page 19 of 19