India

Delhi High Court Upholds Passenger Rights to Civil or Criminal Action Over Airline Staff Misconduct

By ANI

The Delhi High Court ruled that passengers who suffer from alleged misconduct or unlawful behaviour by airline staff can seek civil or criminal remedies available under law, but declined to order the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to create a separate regulatory mechanism for such complaints. Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a petition that requested the government to formulate rules and guidelines to address alleged misconduct, harassment and misbehaviour by airline personnel towards passengers. The Court held that the creation of rules, regulations and regulatory guidelines is a matter of policy for competent authorities and that, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot issue a general direction compelling the government to prescribe specific disciplinary measures simply because a petitioner considers them appropriate.

The petition was filed by Shalini Tiwari, who said that a customer‑care executive of IndiGo Airlines used vulgar, abusive and gendered language while speaking to her. She claimed that despite making several representations seeking accountability and disciplinary action against the employee, the airline failed to take meaningful action. Tiwari argued that the existing Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) provide mechanisms and consequences for passenger misconduct but do not contain a specific mechanism to deal with alleged misconduct, harassment or misbehaviour by airline personnel towards passengers. The Court noted that the absence of such a mechanism in the CARs, by itself, does not justify a judicial direction requiring authorities to frame rules in the manner sought by the petitioner.

The Court observed that mechanisms dealing with passenger misconduct are aimed at ensuring the safety and security of airports and flights, and that alleged unruly behaviour by airline personnel can be dealt with through appropriate civil or criminal remedies. It also noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court, after which the DGCA was directed to treat her petition as a representation and decide it within 30 days. In a communication dated July 20, 2026, the DGCA said that the petitioner’s grievance relating to the incident had already been addressed by the airline through necessary corrective and preventive action. The High Court said that no further direction for initiating action against the airline in relation to the same incident was warranted. It clarified that if the petitioner remained dissatisfied, she was at liberty to pursue appropriate civil or criminal remedies.