Bombay High Court Asks Centre to Produce the Number of COVID-19 Positive Passengers After the Vande Bharat Mission Flight

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Bombay High Court on 22.03.2020 had asked the Centre to inform the number of passengers from different nations who tested COVID positive. This applied to those who were positive after landing in India and not before taking the flight. The stranded passengers are from the USA. The government evacuated the passengers under the Vande Bharat Mission.

Petitioner’s Argument

Air India Commander Devan Y Kanani filed a petition before the Hon’ble Court. He claimed that the flight violated the circular vide 23.03.2020 issued by the Indian Government. It laid down the rule of keeping the middle seat empty for the passenger’s evacuation.

Respondent’s Argument

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh appeared for the Union of India. He sought that the Court makes the Directorate General of Civil Aviation a party to the case. As a result, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, appeared on behalf of the DGCA and Air India. He assured that the flights had complied with all safety and social distancing norms.

DGCA also directed the airlines to keep the middle seats vacant. He let them know that protective gear like a 3-layered mask, face shields, etc. are being provided by Air India. Air India also filed an affidavit for this. It states that “over 70,000 Indians have to return by June 16 and 85,000 Indians in the third phase of evacuation. Over 6.5 lakh Indians stranded abroad due to the outbreak of COVID-19 have reached out seeking a rescue.”

Court’s Observation

On Anil Singh’s seeking the inclusion of Ministry of Civil Aviation as a party, the bench said that “it would decide the same after hearing an application from the Ministry.”

While hearing the petition on 22nd May 2020, the Bombay High Court concluded that “the circular stating the middle seats be empty applies to Air India’s non- scheduled international flights.” Then, the Ministry and Air India moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order.

Court’s Decision

On 25.05.2020, the SC allowed Air India to operate non-scheduled flights. This included the centre seat bookings for 10 days up to 06.06.20. Following the SC order, DGCA directed airlines to try to keep the middle seats vacant. It also directed to provide ‘wrap-around gowns’ to passengers who had these seats. Further, the Court asked the Centre to submit the data of such passengers by 03.06.2020 evening.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -