Breathalyzer results override subsequent private medical tests for aviation safety compliance under CAR regulations.

The appellant, a pilot, sought a review of a court order dated May 4, 2026, which had dismissed his appeal against a Single Judge's decision.

The original dispute involved a positive breathalyzer (BA) test.

The appellant contended that subsequent blood and urine tests he underwent independently should have been considered, arguing that a prior communication from the airline to the DGCA suggested these tests were "recommended".

1. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the consideration of independent blood and urine tests that would justify a review of the court's prior order.

2. Whether the airline was legally mandated to conduct confirmatory blood or urine tests following a positive breathalyzer result under existing aviation regulations.

The court applied the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) and Rule 24 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which mandate that blood alcohol content must be zero during pre-flight reporting.

Rule 24 utilizes the word "or" regarding breath, blood, and urine analysis, establishing that there is no mandatory statutory requirement for an operator to conduct all three tests if a pre-flight BA test has already been performed.

The court applied the standard for review petitions, which requires the identification of an "error apparent on the face of the record" rather than a re-argument on the merits.

The court found that the appellant’s arguments were essentially an attempt to re-litigate the merits of the case rather than pointing out a clerical or legal error in the previous judgment.

It noted that the Single Judge had already determined that while the appellant chose to undergo private tests, those results were irrelevant because they were not directed by the operator as per the mandatory protocols of the CAR.

The court highlighted that under Rule 24, performing only a BA test is sufficient for compliance, and the operator is not required to verify a positive BA result with blood or urine samples except in cases of accidents.

The appellant's reliance on a specific internal communication did not override the statutory frameworks already analyzed by the court.

The court affirmed that the independent test results could not be considered under the circumstances and that the airline had fulfilled its legal obligations under the CAR.