Landmark Judgments on Aviation Law

Indian aviation jurisprudence emphasises passenger welfare while recognising the technical and commercial realities of air transport. Courts rely on expert investigations to differentiate unavoidable operational mishaps from criminal negligence, grant compensation based on proved loss rather than fixed sums, and impose liability where negligence is established.

Judicial review of aviation contracts remains limited to transparency and fairness, while consumer remedies depend on demonstrated deficiency in service, with weather-related delays generally excluded. Foreign state-owned airlines are also subject to Indian consumer jurisdiction for commercial activities. Together, these rulings have built a coherent and evolving system of accountability and regulatory oversight in the Indian aviation sector.

Landmark Judgments on Aviation Law

1) Compensation Claim Rejected; No Criminal Liability for Pilots in Air India AI-411 Incident

The Delhi High Court in Sangeeta Barring v. Air India Ltd. & Ors. (2003), held that the mid-air jerky movement on Flight AI-411, which caused serious injuries to the petitioner cabin crew member, did not disclose criminal negligence by the pilots warranting prosecution or cancellation of licences. Relying on the DGCA expert inquiry, the Court found that the autopilot tripped due to sudden control inputs during speed-brake deployment—a technical mishap within the hazards of flying, and that punitive action had already been taken by aviation authorities. While declining exemplary damages and criminal directions, the Court ordered Air India to reimburse all past and future medical expenses, retain the petitioner in service with posting of her choice, and pay any compensation due under standing rules, noting that the airline had already spent substantial amounts on her treatment and salary.

2) Judicial Deference to Transparent Multi-Tier Evaluation in Airport Privatisation

In Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2006), the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of Reliance’s challenge to the award of Delhi and Mumbai airport modernisation contracts to GMR and GVK, holding that the decision-making process was transparent, multi-layered, and within governmental discretion. The Court ruled that the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGOM) was entitled to seek validation from the Group of Eminent Technical Experts (GETE) when inconsistencies were found in the Evaluation Committee’s marking vis-à-vis the Request for Proposal (RFP), and that GETE’s moderation merely realigned scores with RFP norms rather than re-evaluating bids.

Lowering the technical benchmark from 80% to 50% to ensure competition was held to be a rational policy choice driven by public interest and project urgency. Emphasising limited judicial review in commercial contracts, the Court reiterated that interference lies only for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, none of which were established, and also noted Reliance’s improper communications during the process. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

3) Indian Airlines Promotion Rules Are Administrative, Not Statutory

In K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines & Ors. (2009), the Supreme Court upheld the promotion of certain officers to the post of Deputy Manager (Maintenance/Systems) and ruled that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Indian Airlines were administrative guidelines and not statutory in nature. The Court held that the merger of software and hardware cadres pursuant to a settlement between the Management and the Officers’ Association was valid, as such settlements could modify non-statutory rules.

Promotion to the selection grade was based on merit and suitability-cum-seniority, and seniority alone did not confer a right to promotion. The appellant, having participated in the selection process without protest, could not later challenge the procedure. Finding no arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 16, the Court dismissed the appeal.

4) Liability for Negligence in Air Crash Compensation

In Airport Authority of India v. Ushaben Shirishbhai Shah (2009), the widow and sons of Shirishbhai, who died in the 1988 Indian Airlines crash near Ahmedabad Airport, sought compensation for the loss of their sole breadwinner. The court found that the accident resulted from the combined negligence of the airline and the Airport Authority of India, establishing their joint liability for the tragedy. While determining compensation, the court considered the deceased’s income, his contribution to the family, and their overall financial circumstances to ensure just and realistic relief. Holding the Airport Authority equally responsible for failure in safety and operational duties, the court directed it, along with the airline, to pay adequate compensation to the claimants.

5) No Compensation for Weather-Induced Flight Delay in Absence of Deficiency in Service

The Supreme Court in M/s InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand (2011), held that an airline is not liable to pay compensation for hardship caused by flight delay or cancellation due to dense fog and ATC clearance issues, as these are events beyond the carrier’s control. The passenger had voluntarily remained on board despite being offered options of refund and rebooking.

The Court ruled that airlines, including low-cost carriers, must provide minimum facilitation such as snacks, water, and toilet access during delays, but compensation cannot be granted without proof of deficiency in service or negligence. The exclusive “Delhi courts” jurisdiction clause was found inapplicable, and the Lok Adalat award of ₹10,000 compensation was set aside.

6) Air Crash Compensation Depends on Proved Loss, Not Fixed Minimum

In National Aviation Company of India Ltd. v. S. Abdul Salam (2011), the Kerala High Court ruled that the Montreal Convention, as adopted in the Third Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, does not guarantee a fixed minimum compensation for death or injury in an air crash. The liability of the airline is unlimited, but must be based on actual damages proved by the claimants, assessed through factors such as age, income, and dependency.

Rule 21(1) only restricts the airline from raising defences for claims up to 1 lakh SDRs and does not create an automatic entitlement. The Court set aside the earlier order directing payment of a minimum 1 lakh SDRs and held that compensation should be settled through negotiation or determined by civil courts on real loss.

7) Commercial Acts of Foreign Airlines Not Protected by Sovereign Immunity

In Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011), the Court dealt with a consumer complaint arising from delay in delivery of an international air cargo consignment, and the airline’s objection that (being a foreign State instrumentality) it enjoyed sovereign immunity and could not be proceeded against without Central Government consent under Section 86 CPC.

The Supreme Court held that proceedings before Consumer Fora are, in substance, “suits” in a broad sense (as earlier recognised in Patel Roadways and reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench in Economic Transport Organisation), but Section 86 CPC does not bar consumer proceedings because the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applies CPC only to a limited extent (Section 13) and does not incorporate Section 86; further, under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972/Warsaw Convention framework, a contracting State carrier is deemed to have submitted to jurisdiction in such claims, reflecting waiver/restrictive immunity for commercial transactions.

Accordingly, the Court rejected Ethiopian Airlines’ immunity objection, upheld remand for merits adjudication, and directed expeditious disposal by the State Commission.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams