Delhi High Court Directs DGCA on Air India Meal Complaint
The Delhi High Court has instructed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Ministry of Civil Aviation to swiftly address a complaint filed against Air India concerning inadequate meal services on a 16-hour flight. This directive comes in response to a grievance lodged by two passengers on Air India flight AI-173 from New Delhi to San Francisco, dated November 11, 2020.
The passengers involved, one of whom is Nivedita Sharma, reported that Air India offered only a single hot meal with limited snack options during the long-haul flight. The passengers, who have conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, claimed the meal service was insufficient. They further alleged that one of them experienced food poisoning, dehydration, and repeated hypoglycemic episodes, necessitating the consumption of sugar and sweetened drinks.
High Court’s Order and Legal Proceedings
In a recent order dated May 23, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the DGCA to examine the complaint comprehensively and in a timely fashion. The court emphasized, “We direct that the grievance redressal exercise, if not already concluded, shall be completed expeditiously after taking into consideration the written replies submitted by the Appellants as well as Respondent No. 3/Air India, and a reasoned order shall be passed within a period of six weeks.”
The passengers had previously approached the High Court in 2021, seeking the establishment of an independent committee to review airline meal standards. A single judge initially acknowledged the inconvenience suffered by the passengers. On April 8, 2025, the court directed the Ministry to address the petition as a complaint, urging the relevant authorities to consider it under existing legal frameworks. However, the passengers later contested the adequacy of this decision, leading them to file an appeal.
Legal Arguments and Court’s Decision
The appellants contended that the single judge should have resolved the matter instead of transferring it to the Ministry and DGCA, especially given the accusations against DGCA itself. The Division Bench, however, dismissed these arguments, stating that a writ petition does not necessitate a decision on merits solely based on the issuance of a notice. The Bench further noted that the case involved disputed factual queries, which are not suited for writ proceedings, and reiterated that regulatory bodies like the DGCA and the Ministry are more apt to initially address such grievances.
More Read
Despite these procedural directives, the court acknowledged that the grievance had not yet been adequately addressed, thus mandating the Ministry and DGCA to expedite their resolution process, considering all submitted responses. The High Court also reminded that a reasoned order must be finalized within six weeks, allowing the passengers to pursue further legal avenues if dissatisfied with the outcome.
Representation and Next Steps
Advocate Parth Kaushik represented the appellants alongside Nivedita Sharma, who appeared in person. Advocates Anjana Gosain and Adhiraj Singh represented the Ministry and DGCA. The court’s decision emphasizes the necessity for regulatory bodies to address passenger grievances swiftly and thoroughly. The passengers retain the right to seek further legal recourse should the DGCA’s decision not meet their satisfaction.
