Bombay High Court Permits Domestic Airlines to Fill up Middle Seats of Airplanes

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

The Bombay High Court on 5th June allowed the domestic airlines to fill up the middle seats. This is in compliance with the DGCA circular dated 31st May 2020.

Brief Facts of the Case 

On March 23rd, the Govt. of India had instructed domestic airlines to keep the middle seats empty. Air India in an international flight did not follow the same. An Air India pilot had previously challenged this practice of the airline in the Bombay HC. Deven Kanani alleged that Air India flouted social distancing norms. The High Court has on 22nd May ordered all the airlines to keep the middle seat vacant. 

The Apex Court was then moved by an aggrieved Air India. The Court asked the aviation regulator DGCA to frame rules for the matter. These should not only meet commercial goals but must also weigh the public interest. It permitted Air India and Air India Express to fill up middle seats till June 6. These airlines are evacuating Indians from different countries under the Vande Bharat Mission.

The Supreme Court had urged the Bombay High Court on 25th May to pass orders after hearing both sides. The petitioner had contended that COVID-19 transmits via touch. The middle seat passengers were hence susceptible to contracting the disease. The High Court had asked for clarification from an experts committee about the same.

Thereafter, the DGCA issued an order on 31st May 2020. It instructed domestic airlines to keep the middle seats vacant to the extent. Further, it had allowed filling up the middle seat in case of high loads. In such circumstances, the airline is to provide a gown to the middle seat passenger.

Contentions of the Respondent 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the DGCA. He submitted that the COVID-19 virus transmits via touch only under special circumstances. It is when a non-infected person touches an infected surface and then touches his nose or mouth. Ordinarily, after the recommended disinfection of hands, the virus does not transmit. He stated that the infection does not transmit by touch. There are droplets carrying the virus on the clothes of an infected person. Infection transmits if they reach the nose and mouth of a non-infected person.

The Court also inquired the airlines on Vande Bharat Mission. It sought figures of people who tested positive for the virus after taking the flight. Air India stated that among the 59,000 rescued, 248 passengers tested positive. Also, out of the 5,000 cabin crew, 21 tested positive. Besides, there was the death of an employee deployed at an office and not in flight. Adv. Janak Dwarkada appeared for Indigo. He submitted that the order threatened the airline’s right to carry business. Adv. Venkatesh Dhond appeared for Spice Jet while Adv. Darius Khambatta appeared for GoAir. Both supported the DGCA circular before the Court. 

Report of the Expert Committee 

The High Court had requested a report from an Experts Committee from its order dated June 4, 2020. It comprised of Dr Randep Guleria, Dr Balram Bhargava and Dr Naresh Trehan. Pradeep Singh Kharola, Secretary of Ministry of Civil Aviation, headed this committee. The Court asked them to clarify if the virus can be transmitted via a mere touch of an infected person. 

The committee clarified that the virus is not transmitted if the infected person is wearing a protective gown. The gown insulates the infected person. The viruses on his clothes do not transmit to a non-infected person. The same holds true vice versa, i.e. when the non-infected person is wearing a gown and the infected person is not. Hence, a protective gown works as a shield against the transmission of COVID-19. However, it is still necessary to wear a mask and protective shield. The prescribed protocol of wearing the gown and removing it must be strictly adhered to.

Court’s Order 

The High Court reserved an order in the matter. In the meantime, it allowed the flight operators to fill the middle seat. This complies with the DGCA order dated 31st May 2020.


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 to 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

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -