01Facts
The petitioner alleged that an IndiGo customer-care executive used vulgar, abusive and gendered language toward her.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–4After the airline allegedly failed to take meaningful action on her representations, she sought regulatory rules and a complaint-redressal mechanism for misconduct by airline personnel, as well as an inquiry into her incident.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–4In an earlier petition, the Court had directed the DGCA to treat her petition as a representation and decide it within thirty days.
p. 3 · ¶ 5The DGCA subsequently informed her that the airline had addressed the grievance and taken corrective and preventive action.
p. 3 · ¶ 602Issues
i.Whether the Court should direct the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the DGCA to formulate rules or guidelines and establish a separate mechanism for complaints against airline personnel.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–9ii.Whether further action should be directed against the airline concerning the petitioner’s individual complaint, despite the DGCA’s communication that the grievance had been addressed.
p. 3 · ¶ 603Law Applied
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction; it will not compel the Government to formulate rules or prescribe specific disciplinary measures merely because a petitioner considers them appropriate.
p. 4 · ¶ 9–10The formulation of rules, regulations and regulatory guidelines lies within the competent authorities’ domain and is a matter of policy.
p. 3 · ¶ 7Misconduct or unlawful behaviour by airline personnel may be pursued through appropriate civil or criminal remedies available in law.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 8, 11The judgment cites no specific statute, CAR provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–1104Reasoning
The Court found no basis to require the authorities to create the proposed regulatory framework, holding that rule-making is a policy matter and that the asserted disparity between mechanisms addressing passenger misconduct and airline-personnel misconduct did not justify judicially directing the authorities to frame rules in the manner sought.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–9As to the individual incident, the DGCA had reported that the airline had addressed the grievance and taken corrective and preventive action; accordingly, no further direction against the airline was warranted, without prejudice to the petitioner pursuing available civil or criminal remedies.
p. 3 · ¶ 605Holding
The Court declined to direct the authorities to formulate rules or establish a separate complaint mechanism and declined to order further action against the airline concerning the incident.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–12The petition was dismissed, with any pending applications also disposed of; the petitioner remained at liberty to pursue appropriate civil or criminal remedies.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6–12Original Court PDF
Mrs. Shalini TiwarivsUnion Of India And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
