Bombay High Court: In the present case, issued was raised in relation to the ordeals of senior citizens in undertaking air travel and particularly, in respect of nonavailability of wheelchairs and other appropriate facilities being provided to them, either by the Civil Aviation companies or the Airport operators.
The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., opined that the requirement of wheelchair might not be an issue, confined only to the senior citizens, as it would also be relevant to those passengers, who were sick/ailing or suffering disability and it might include children. The Court thus constituted a three-member Committee, which after receiving suggestions from all the stakeholders and on deliberation on the relevant issues, shall make an appropriate report to the Director General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’), recommending the essential requirements and norms which need to be introduced, for effective implementation of the norms by the Civil Aviation Companies (Airlines) and the Airport Operators to enable smooth and comfortable travel of the senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and persons with lack of mobility, etc.
The Court noted that the Regulations titled “Carriage by Air-Persons with Disability (Divyangjan) and/or Persons with Reduced Mobility”, were framed to safeguard the interests of the disabled passengers and/or persons with reduced mobility. A reply affidavit dated 11-4-2025 was filed on behalf of Respondent 1 which stated that the basic responsibility of providing wheelchairs for the passengers lies with Airlines and Airports and Ramps/Ambulifts were required to be provided to the passengers as per their requirements. Further, it was stated that the DGCA issued norms to safeguard the interests of the disabled passengers and/or persons with reduced mobility and the Airlines should take reasonable efforts to provide best possible assistance in accordance with the said norms.
In addition to the said norms, ‘Carriage by Air of Persons with disability and/or persons with reduced mobility, Passengers Centric Regulations’, to safeguard the interest of the travelling public were also framed to address the issues on facilities to be provided by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of flights and delays in flights.
The Court noted that an unfortunate incident had taken place in respect of senior citizen, aged 80 years, who was travelling from New York and was not provided a wheelchair on disembarking despite a prior request made to the airline for wheelchair assistance. He collapsed and died at Mumbai airport while walking from the aircraft to the terminal. It was established that there was negligence on the airlines part, contravening the provisions of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) Section 3, Series M, Part I, amounting to a violation of Rule 133-A(3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and thus the airline was imposed with financial penalty as per the appropriate provisions.
The Court stated that there could not be any laxity, negligence, and sufferance on the basic requirements of the senior citizens and it was a collective responsibility of all the stake holders to look after the needs of the senior citizen travellers and those with special needs. Further, the staff dealing with the passengers need to be sensitized to the said issues so that respectful and humane treatment was meted out to such travellers.
The Court noted that in its order dated 7-4-2025, it had observed that there could be no two opinions that the problems, concerns and/or the miseries of the senior citizens who undertake air travel, deserve to be addressed by all the stakeholders with utmost promptness.
The Court opined that the requirement of wheelchair might not be an issue, confined only to the senior citizens, as it would also be relevant to those passengers, who were sick/ailing or suffering disability and it might include children. It was one of the most fundamental human requirements that appropriate facilities of such aid and assistance, to such ‘persons in need’ were provided by the airlines/airport operators and regime in proper coordination with different stakeholders need to be established.
To meet the needs of justice, the Court passed the following order, so that the intricacies on these issues were examined from every possible angle by having a deliberation with all the stakeholders for workable norms which might be arrived at by DGCA:
-
A three-member Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Goda Raghuram, Former Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Composite State) and Former Director of the National Judicial Academy, one high ranking Official from the Directorate of Civil Aviation to be nominated by Director General of Civil Aviation and Shirish Deshpande, Chairman, Mumbai, Grahak Panchayat was constituted to deliberate on the said issues.
-
The Committee shall hear the Civil Aviation Companies (Airlines), the petitioners and/or representatives of the travellers, representative of the different Airport Operators, a Senior Official from the Department of the Disability Commissioner and any other appropriate parties as the Committee might deem appropriate.
-
After receiving suggestions from all the stakeholders and on deliberation on the relevant issues arising for its consideration, the Committee shall make an appropriate report to the DGCA, recommending the essential requirements and norms which need to be introduced, for effective implementation of the norms by the Civil Aviation Companies (Airlines) and the Airport Operators to enable smooth and comfortable travel of the senior citizens, persons with disabilities and persons with lack of mobility, etc.
The Court clarified that the committee constituted by this Court, would purely have a recommendatory role, to be discharged in the larger interest of the air travellers with special needs and it was for the DGCA ultimately to consider the recommendations and take an appropriate call on the issue, as might be permissible in law.
The matter would next be listed on 30-6-2025.
[Monica Madanlal Gupta v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 667 of 2024, decided on 22-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Aseem Naphade a/w Nishtha Malik, Sonal Kochar, Bijal Soni, Deepanjali Mishra and Tejas Horambe i/b NAS Legal Advocates for petitioners in both Matters.
For the Respondents: Leena Patil for Respondent 1; Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Nitesh Jain, Hridhay Khurana and Arnav Bhansali i/b Trilegal for Respondent 2; Shoma Maitra a/w Nipeksh Arvind Jaini/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent 3 in WP/667/2024; Farid Karachiwala a/w Yuvraj Choksy i/b J. Sagar Associates for Respondent 3 in WP/178/2025