The Delhi High Court has declined to direct the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to formulate separate rules and a dedicated complaint mechanism for dealing with misconduct by airline employees towards passengers.
Justice Amit Mahajan held that framing regulatory rules and disciplinary guidelines falls within the domain of the competent authorities and involves policy considerations. The Court dismissed a petition seeking stronger regulatory accountability for alleged harassment by airline personnel.
Background
The petition was filed by Mrs. Shalini Tiwari after she alleged that a customer-care executive of IndiGo Airlines used vulgar, abusive and gendered language during a conversation with her.
She claimed that despite making several representations to the airline seeking accountability and disciplinary action against the concerned employee, no meaningful action had been taken.
Tiwari had earlier approached the High Court through W.P.(C) No. 6450/2026. On May 12, 2026, the Court directed the DGCA to treat her petition as a representation and decide it within 30 days.
The DGCA subsequently informed her, through a communication dated July 20, 2026, that the airline had addressed the grievance through corrective and preventive measures.
The Court observed that the existing Civil Aviation Requirements contain provisions dealing with unruly passenger behaviour primarily to protect airport and flight safety. However, the absence of a corresponding mechanism for complaints against airline employees did not automatically justify judicial intervention.
Justice Mahajan observed:
"As regards the prayer seeking formulation of appropriate rules and guidelines and establishment of a separate mechanism for addressing complaints against airline personnel, this Court finds no ground for interference. The formulation of rules, regulations and regulatory guidelines falls within the domain of the competent authorities and is a matter of policy."
The Court further explained that it could not compel the Government to frame specific regulations merely because a petitioner considered them necessary.
It stated:
"This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a general direction compelling the Government to formulate rules or prescribe specific disciplinary measures merely because the petitioner deems it appropriate."
The Court also clarified that passengers alleging misconduct by airline employees are not without legal remedies.
The Delhi High Court declined to issue directions for introducing separate regulations or a dedicated complaint mechanism against airline personnel. It also found no justification for ordering further action against IndiGo in relation to the incident, particularly after the DGCA informed the Court that corrective and preventive measures had already been taken.
The Court observed:
"Needless to observe, any act of misconduct or unlawful behaviour by airline personnel may be addressed by an aggrieved passenger through appropriate civil or criminal remedies, as may be available in law."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Mrs. Shalini Tiwari v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16299/2026
Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
Decision Date: November 3, 2026
