AirAsia India denies 'wrong-doing' as CBI probes Group CEO
New Delhi, May 29: AirAsia India (AAIL) on Tuesday refuted any "wrong-doing" after the CBI registered a case against its Group CEO Tony Fernandes on alleged attempt to tweak rules to get an international flying licence for the airline.
According to the airline, it is co-operating with all regulators and agencies to present the correct facts.
"In November 2016, AAIL had initiated criminal charges against its ex-CEO and had also commenced civil proceedings in Bangalore for such irregularities," AirAsia India's Director Shuva Mandal said in a statement.
"We hope to bring early resolution to all such issues."
The airline's defence comes after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday registered a case against the Malaysian billionaire.
The investigation agency on Tuesday conducted searches at five locations in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru in connection with the case.
"A case has been registered against Fernandes and some other unidentified persons linked to the firm (AirAsia India)," CBI spokesperson R.K. Gaur said.
Gaur said Fernandes had lobbied and was trying to violate rule 5/20 that requires an airline to have a minimum of five years of flying experience and 20 aircraft to apply for international licences.
Interestingly, in 2016, the 5/20 norm was amended. Currently, a domestic airline requires 20 aircraft to apply for international flight rights.
The CBI has named Fernandes and others in a criminal case for violating FDI norms in giving effective management to a foreign entity through FIPB clearance in 2013 and attempt to bribe for tweaking rules to get a licence for its joint venture to operate international flights.
The CBI FIR also names "unknown public servants" of the Civil Aviation Ministry, the then Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB), R. Venkataramanan, Director AirAsia, and AirAsia Group Deputy CEO T. Kanagalingam alias Bo Lingam.
The FIR also alleges that in December 2014, Sunil Kapoor, who runs an in-flight catering company, along with Bo Lingam handed over a packet containing Rs 50 lakh to facilitate removal of the rule that required five years' domestic flying experience and 20 aircraft to get a licence to fly internationally.
The CBI said it had received information that AirAsia India was indirectly controlled and operated by the AirAsia Group and particularly AirAsia Berhad, violating the norms of the then FIPB.
This structure was directly formalised through a "Brand Licence Agreement" signed by AirAsia represented by Fernandes and AirAsia Berhad represented by Bo Lingam on April 17, 2013, which indirectly made AirAsia India a de facto subsidiary rather than a joint venture.
As per the then FDI policy, foreign airlines were allowed to own up to 49 per cent of share in domestic airlines but effective management control must remain with the Indian partner.
Bharatiya Janata Party Rajya Sabha member and former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy tweeted: "Finally the CBI is presently raiding AirAsia offices including of the CEO's. It is arising from my PIL in Delhi HC."
Currently, the Delhi High Court is hearing a case filed by Swamy against the grant of a flying licence to AirAsia India.
AirAsia (India) is a joint venture between Tata Sons and AirAsia Berhad, with AirAsia Investment.
The budget carrier commenced operations on June 12, 2014 and currently flies to 20 destinations across India with a fleet size of 18 A320 aircraft.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bombay High Court strikes down Centre's plan to set up Fact-Check Unit
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has struck down the central government's plan to establish a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023. The decision comes in response to a petition filed by standup comedian Kunal Kamra, challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's move.
Justice A.S. Chandurkar, delivering the final verdict, declared that the proposed IT Amendment Rules violated key provisions of the Indian Constitution, namely Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 19(1)(g) (right to profession).
“I have considered the matter extensively. The impugned rules are violative of Articles 14, 19, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,” Justice Chandurkar said in his judgment. He further remarked that terms like "fake, false, and misleading" in the IT Rules were "vague" and lacked a clear definition, making them unconstitutional.
This judgment followed a split verdict issued by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in January. The bench, consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, was divided in their opinions. While Justice Patel ruled that the IT Rules amounted to censorship and struck them down, Justice Gokhale upheld the rules, arguing that they did not pose a "chilling effect" on free speech, as the petitioners had claimed.
The matter was then referred to a third judge, leading to today's decision. The Supreme Court had previously stayed the Centre's notification that would have made the fact-checking unit operational, stating that the government could not proceed until the Bombay High Court ruled on the case.
Kunal Kamra and other petitioners had argued that the amendments posed unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. They contended that the provisions would lead to government-led censorship, effectively granting the government unchecked powers to determine what constitutes 'truth' online. The petitioners further claimed that such powers would turn the government into "prosecutor, judge, and executioner" in matters of online content.
With the Bombay High Court’s ruling, the Centre's move to create fact-checking units has been effectively halted, reaffirming the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression in the digital space.
