The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking more details in the Air India crash preliminary report, questioning the petitioner’s motive. The Court said such information can be sought through RTI and refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised a petitioner while dismissing his plea related to the preliminary investigation report of the Air India plane crash that took place in Ahmedabad in June last year. The Court questioned the intention behind filing the petition and refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s earlier order which had already dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing the matter. During the hearing, the Court expressed its displeasure and questioned the motive of the petitioner for pursuing the case despite the fact that the families of the victims had not filed such a petition. The Court made strong oral remarks while dismissing the plea.
“What is your “deep-rooted agenda”, an irate Supreme Court asked a petitioner on Wednesday while dismissing his plea related to the preliminary investigation report on the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad last June.
The Supreme Court also refused the request made by the petitioner that his plea should be treated as a representation before the authorities. The petitioner had challenged the February 25 order of the Delhi High Court, which had earlier rejected a PIL seeking directions to include detailed information about the “complete sequence of events” that led to the crash in the preliminary investigation report.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi also refused to accept the petitioner’s contention that authorities be directed to treat his plea as a representation.
The Court further made strong observations during the hearing and questioned why the petitioner was filing such a plea when even the families of the victims had not approached the Court with such demands.
“What is your deep-rooted agenda? As if we don’t understand the motive. The people who lost their lives, their family members are not filing (petitions) but you are filing,”
an anguished CJI told the counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The case relates to the tragic Air India flight AI 171 crash that took place on June 12 last year. The aircraft, a Boeing 787-8, was flying from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick when it crashed into a medical college hostel complex shortly after taking off from the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport.
The aircraft caught fire after the crash, leading to the death of 241 out of 242 people onboard. Additionally, 19 people on the ground also lost their lives in the accident, making it one of the deadliest aviation accidents in recent times.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking directions to “read down” the preliminary investigation report prepared by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau. The petitioner wanted the authorities to modify the report and include specific technical details such as the time-chart of engine “flame out”, the transition of fuel switches, and whether the transition was mechanical or manual.
The PIL had also sought directions to the bureau to make such information public by publishing it in the public domain.
However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL and held that the petition was “highly misconceived”. The High Court observed that if the petitioner wanted such information, he should have used the legal route available under the Right to Information (RTI) Act instead of filing a PIL seeking modification of the investigation report.
The High Court clearly stated that such relief could not be granted by the Court and that the proper legal remedy was to file an RTI application. The Court further clarified that if the requested information was permissible under the RTI Act, then it would be provided through that process.
The high court said the PIL, which had also sought a direction to the bureau to publish such information in public domain, was “highly misconceived”.
Observing that the petitioner should have taken recourse available to him under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the high court said,
“Such prayer in our considered opinion cannot be granted.”
If such information is worthy of being given under the RTI Act, it would be provided, the high court said.
With these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order, effectively bringing the matter to a close.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Air India Crash
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
