Urination incident: Air India imposes four-month flying ban on Shankar Mishra
New Delhi, Jan 19: Air India on Thursday said it has imposed a four-month flying ban on Shankar Mishra, who is accused of urinating on a woman co-passenger onboard a flight in November last year.
An airline official said the ban is with immediate effect and is in addition to the 30-day ban it had imposed on the individual earlier.
The incident of Mishra, who was in an inebriated condition allegedly urinated on the woman co-passenger onboard the Air India flight from New York to Delhi on November 26, 2022.
"The independent three-member Internal Committee under the Chairmanship of the former District Judge has concluded that Shankar Mishra is covered under the definition of 'unruly passenger' and is banned from flying for a period of 4 months as per the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR)," an Air India spokesperson said in a statement.
The passenger has already been put on the airline's 'no fly list'.
Tata group-owned Air India has shared a copy of the committee's report with the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and will also be intimating other airlines operating in the country, the spokesperson said.
Other airlines can take their own decision on whether any ban should be imposed on the individual.
Currently, Mishra is in jail and the case is before a Delhi court.
On January 4, Air India said it has imposed a 30-day travel ban on Mishra but did not disclose the time period of the ban.
A day later on January 5, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) issued notices to the officials and crew of the New York-Delhi flight, asking why action should not be taken against them for "dereliction" of duty while handling the November 26 'urination' incident.
"The conduct of the concerned airline appears to be unprofessional and has led to a systemic failure," the regulator had said about the incident.
DGCA has issued show cause notices to the accountable manager of Air India, its director in-flight services, all the pilots and cabin crew members of that flight as to why enforcement action should not be taken against them for dereliction of their regulatory obligations.
Under DGCA rules, the airline concerned is responsible for informing the regulator within 12 hours of landing of the aircraft in case of any incident of unruly passengers/ passenger rage/misconduct reported in their flight.
Besides, the airline concerned has to set up a three-member internal committee. It will have a retired District and Sessions Judge as Chairman, a representative from a different scheduled airline as a member and a representative from a passengers' association or consumer association or retired officer of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum as the third member.
The committee can decide the duration of flying ban on the unruly passenger within 30 days and there could be a lifetime ban.
During the pendency of the decision by the committee, the airline concerned may ban such unruly passenger from flying for a period of up to 30 days, as per the rules.
After the committee takes the decision, the airline should maintain a database of all such unruly passengers and inform the same to DGCA, which is the custodian for maintaining the 'no-fly list'.
The woman, who had accused Mishra of urinating on her on the flight, on January 13 rejected the claims made by him that she seems to have urinated on herself, saying these are "completely false and concocted and by their very nature are disparaging and derogatory".
Mishra's counsel, while arguing against a police petition seeking revision of an order passed by a magisterial court refusing his custodial interrogation, on January 12 claimed that he did not commit the offence, and that she urinated on herself.
On January 8, Tata Group Chairman N Chandrasekaran admitted that Air India's response to the incident of the drunk passenger urinating on the woman should have been "much swifter".
"We fell short of addressing this situation the way we should have," he had said in a statement.
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.
Allahabad HC sets aside maintenance order in favour of earning wife, says she didn't tell truth
Prayagraj (PTI): The Allahabad High Court has set aside a lower court order mandating a man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, observing that she earns her living and did not reveal the true salary in her affidavit.
Justice Madan Pal Singh also allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the man, Ankit Saha.
"A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that in the affidavit filed before the trial court, the opposite party herself admitted that she is a post-graduate and a web designer by qualification. She is working as a senior sales coordinator in a company and getting a salary of Rs 34,000 per month," the court said in the December 3 order.
"But in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she was earning Rs 36,000 per month. Such an amount for a wife who has no other liability cannot be said to be meagre; whereas the man has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations," it observed.
The high court observed that the woman was not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband "as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself".
The man's counsel argued in court that the estranged wife did not reveal the whole truth in the affidavit.
"She claimed herself to be an illiterate and unemployed woman. When the document filed by the man was shown to her before the trial court, she admitted her income during cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that she did not come before the trial court with clean hands," the counsel submitted.
The court, in its order, said, "Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court."
It impugned the lower court's February 17 judgment and order, passed by the principal judge of a family court in Gautam Buddh Nagar and allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the man.
