Facts
The Appellant, a pilot with Vistara Airlines, was scheduled to operate flight ‘UK 720’ on November 18, 2017
Source reference: p. 2Upon reporting for duty, he underwent a pre-flight breath analyzer (BA) test which yielded a positive result of 0.004% blood alcohol content
Source reference: p. 2Following Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) protocols, a control test was conducted on another captain, followed by a second BA test on the Appellant, which confirmed the 0.004% reading
Source reference: p. 2Consequently, the Appellant was removed from the flying roster and his license was suspended for three months
Source reference: p. 2The Appellant subsequently underwent private blood and urine tests at NABL-accredited laboratories, which were negative, and challenged the suspension orders dated December 4, 2017, and July 18, 2018
Source reference: p. 3A learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on July 11, 2023, leading to this intra-court appeal
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the results of private blood and urine tests conducted by a pilot independently can override the results of a mandatory pre-flight BA test conducted under CAR
Source reference: p. 7-8 / para. 48-492. Whether the BA test results were "false positives" due to equipment error or procedural lapses in the control test
Source reference: p. 8-10 / para. 51-523. Whether the DGCA is legally mandated to provide blood or urine testing as a confirmatory measure upon a positive BA test
Source reference: p. 10-12 / para. 53-55Law Applied
The court applied Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, and Rule 24 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which prohibits crew members from consuming psychoactive substances and requires zero detectable blood alcohol
Source reference: p. 5, 11It relied on Rule 133A of the 1937 Rules, under which the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) are issued
Source reference: p. 6Specifically, CAR Section 5, Series F, Part IV (2015) governs the "Procedure for breath-analyzer examination," where Para 6.5 mandates a two-step BA test with a control test to eliminate equipment error
Source reference: p. 8, 12Para 8.1 prescribes the penalty of a three-month license suspension for the first offense
Source reference: p. 15The court also applied the principle of limited judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding technical expert findings
Source reference: p. 11, 17Reasoning
The Court upheld the Single Judge’s reasoning that private tests conducted after the reporting time are irrelevant because the CAR requires a specific "zero" alcohol level at the exact time of reporting for duty
Source reference: p. 7-8, 15The Court reasoned that the double-test procedure (two BA tests 15-20 minutes apart with an intermediate control test) is a robust mechanism designed specifically to eliminate "false positives" or equipment margins of error
Source reference: p. 8-9, 16Regarding the "0.005% margin of error" plea, the court found that since the equipment produced a 0.000% result for the control subject and identical 0.004% results for the Appellant, its serviceability was verified
Source reference: p. 13-14, 16The Court rejected the argument for mandatory blood/urine testing, noting that Rule 24 uses the disjunctive "or," implying any one of the three tests (breath, blood, or urine) is sufficient for enforcement; further, requiring blood tests for every flight is logistically and economically unfeasible for airlines
Source reference: p. 10-12, 18-19Holding
It held that the CAR procedure was strictly followed and sufficiently rules out the possibility of error
The Court answered that private medical reports cannot supersede the statutory BA test conducted by the operator
Source reference: p. 15The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the three-month suspension of the Appellant's pilot license
Source reference: p. 21Original Court PDF
Capt Amit Kumar YadavvsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in