Mrs. Shalini Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors.

$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: November 03 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010530912026
+ W.P.(C) 16299/2026
MRS. SHALINI TIWARI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Ms. Smriti S.
Nair & Ms. Sneha Sejwal,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain & Ms.
Akansha Choudhary, Advs. for
R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the
following prayers:
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
Respondent No. 1, Ministry of Civil Aviation, and Respondent No.
2, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, to formulate, prescribe
and/or incorporate appropriate rules, regulations, guidelines and
provisions in the existing Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs), as
may be necessary, to address the existing regulatory gap
concerning misconduct, abuse, harassment, negligence,
misbehaviour and other wrongful acts committed by airline
personnel against passengers;
b) Direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to establish a fair, transparent,
time-bound and effective mechanism for the receipt, registration,
investigation and redressal of complaints relating to misconduct by
airline personnel, including appropriate standards of
accountability, disciplinary consequences, remedial measures and
deterrent provisions, so as to ensure effective protection of the
rights and interests of air passengers;
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16299/2026 Page 1 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03

Respondent No. 1, Ministry of Civil Aviation, and Respondent No.
2, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, to inquire into the
harassment meted out to the Petitioner by the staff of Respondent
No. 3 and to take suitable action against Respondent NO. 3 in
accordance with law;
d) Pass such orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and
fit in the interest of justice.”
2. Briefly stated, it is alleged that when the petitioner contacted
the customer care services of Respondent No. 3/IndiGo Airlines, the
customer-care executive used vulgar, abusive and gendered language
towards her. The petitioner thereafter made several representations to
Respondent No. 3 seeking accountability and disciplinary action
against the concerned employee. However, the airline allegedly failed
to take any meaningful action.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition contending that the
existing Civil Aviation Requirements (‘CARs’) do not provide any
specific mechanism to deal with misconduct, harassment or
misbehaviour by airline personnel towards passengers. It is contended
that though strict and deterrent consequences are prescribed for
passenger misconduct, no equally effective or enforceable mechanism
exists to address misconduct by airline personnel. It is contended that
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, despite being the competent regulatory
authorities, have failed to address the issue despite repeated
representations.
4. The petitioner, accordingly, seeks directions to Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 to formulate appropriate rules and guidelines and
establish an effective mechanism for receiving, investigating and
redressing complaints against airline personnel, along with conducting
an inquiry into the incident in question and taking appropriate action
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16299/2026 Page 2 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03

against respondent No. 3.
5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had
previously approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6450/2026,
which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2026 by directing
Respondent No.2 to treat the said petition as a representation and
dispose of the same within thirty days.
6. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.2 issued a communication
dated 20.07.2026, noting that grievance of the petitioner in regard the
said incident had already been addressed by the airline with necessary
corrective and preventive actions. In these circumstances, no further
direction for initiating action against respondent No. 3 in respect of
the same incident is warranted. If the petitioner is still not satisfied
with the action, she may pursue appropriate civil/criminal remedies in
that regard.
7. As regards the prayer seeking formulation of appropriate rules
and guidelines and establishment of a separate mechanism for
addressing complaints against airline personnel, this Court finds no
ground for interference. The formulation of rules, regulations and
regulatory guidelines falls within the domain of the competent
authorities and is a matter of policy.
8. The contention that the existing Civil Aviation Requirements
provide a mechanism for misconduct of passengers but do not
prescribe a corresponding mechanism for complaints against airline
personnel, by itself, does not warrant a direction to the respondents to
frame rules in the manner suggested by the petitioner. The purpose for
providing mechanisms for dealing with passenger misconduct is to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16299/2026 Page 3 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03

ensure the safety and security of airports and flights. With regard to
any unruly behaviour by airline personnel, the same can be dealt with
in appropriate civil/criminal remedies.
9. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, cannot issue a general direction compelling
the Government to formulate rules or prescribe specific disciplinary
measures merely because the petitioner deems it appropriate.
10. This Court exercises extraordinary and discretionary
jurisdiction while deciding petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In the opinion of this Court, no such
circumstance has been highlighted by the petitioner so as to warrant
exercise of such jurisdiction in the present case.
11. Needless to observe, any act of misconduct or unlawful
behaviour by airline personnel may be addressed by an aggrieved
passenger through appropriate civil or criminal remedies, as may be
available in law.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16299/2026 Page 4 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03