Back
High Court of Delhi
A.K. SIKRI & RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Wg. Crd. (Retd.) V.A. Joshi & Others
Versus
Union Of India & Another
WP(C) No.2741 of 2011
Decided on : 01-05-2012
Aircraft Rules - Age Restriction - Rule 28A, Section M - The court examined the vires of an amendment to Clause 6 of Section M of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which restricted the privileges of airline transport pilot license holders above the age of 65 to that of private pilot license holders. The petitioners argued that the amendment infringed their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(G), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court considered whether the amendment was necessary and whether it was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court held that the amendment was within the power of the Central Government and did not find merit in the argument that the age restriction could only be provided by amending Rule 28A and not Clause 6 of Section M. The court also found that the amendment was not arbitrary and had a nexus with the objective of ensuring safety in aircraft operations. However, the court remitted the matter back to the respondents for proper examination and kept the provision in abeyance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, experienced pilots holding airline transport pilot licenses, challenged an amendment to the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which restricted their privileges above the age of 65 to that of private pilot license holders. They argued that the amendment infringed their fundamental rights and imposed unreasonable restrictions on their right to earn a livelihood.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment was within the power of the Central Government and did not find merit in the argument that the age restriction could only be provided by amending Rule 28A and not Clause 6 of Section M. The court also found that the amendment was not arbitrary and had a nexus with the objective of ensuring safety in aircraft operations. However, the court remitted the matter back to the respondents for proper examination and kept the provision in abeyance.
Issues: The court considered whether the amendment was necessary and whether it was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment was within the power of the Central Government and did not find merit in the argument that the age restriction could only be provided by amending Rule 28A and not Clause 6 of Section M. The court also found that the amendment was not arbitrary and had a nexus with the objective of ensuring safety in aircraft operations.
Final Decision: The court remitted the matter back to the respondents for proper examination and kept the provision in abeyance.
A.K. Sikri, ACJ.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the vires of the amendment to Clause 6 of Section M of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 published in GSR No.11 (E) dated 10.1.2011. The operative portion of the said amendment with which the petitioners feel aggrieved reads as under:
“3. In Schedule II of the said rules, -
(i) in Sections B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, for paragraph 2, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:-
(ii) in Sections J and M, in paragraph 6, after the second and third proviso, respectively, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
“2. Validity – The licence shall be valid for a period as specified in rule 39C.”
‘Provided also that on attainment of the age of sixty-five years, such privileges shall be restricted to that of Private Pilot‘s Licence (Aeroplanes).”
2. By the aforesaid amendment, the respondents have restricted the privileges of the petitioners, who are holders of airline transport pilot licences, on the attainment of age of sixty-five years to that of private pilot licence holders. According to the petitioners, the impugned amendment has, in effect, infringed their rights to earn livelihood and remuneration and to be gainfully employed for the purpose of flying private aircrafts on non-commercial flight operations. This, they perceive, is violating their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(G) and 21 of the Constitution of India as according to the petitioners, this amendment imposes unreasonable restrictions which serve no purpose and ex facie appear to be an act out of vindictiveness. The basic factual matrix of the lis raised in this petition goes as under:
3. As per the petitioners, they are experienced pilots holding ALTP (Air Line Transport Pilot) License and all of them have flying experience of more than 10,000 hours each. They have been pilots for the last 35 to 40 years and most of them have retired from Indian Air Force. All of them are above 65 years of age. There are various categories of Pilot Licenses as provided under the Aircraft Rules, 1937. For the purpose of the present petition, we may take note of the major three categories of licenses, namely, (a) Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL or ALPT); (b) Commercial Pilot License; and (c) Private Pilot License. All the petitioners herein hold ALTP Licenses. Prior to the impugned amendment, the petitioners who are above 65 years of age, were permitted to fly private aircrafts for non-commercial flight operations. There was no restriction under any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder or the CARs prohibiting pilots above 65 years of age from undertaking non-commercial flight operations for remuneration. The only provision under the Rules dealing with the maximum age limit for commercial flight operations was Rule 28A of the Rules. The petitioners were thus employed with private organization, PSUs, State Governments, who had their private aircrafts. The petitioners were flying such aircrafts for noncommercial flight operations, i.e., no fee was being charged from the passengers in the aircraft. Prior to 17.11.2005, Rule 28A was based on earlier GSR 251 dated 20.7.1999, which read as under:-
“28A. Maximum age limit for professional pilots.-
(1) No person, holding a professional pilot license i.e. a commercial, senior commercial or air transport pilot‘s license, shall engage himself in scheduled air services or nonscheduled aircraft operations for remuneration or hire after attaining the age of 60 years.”
4. Vide Notification No. G.S.R. 676 (E) (17-Nov-05) dated 17.11.2005 by an amendment in Rule 28A of Aircraft Rules, 1937, the said Rule was substituted to read as follows:-
“28A. Maximum age limit for professional pilots.-
(1) No person, holding a pilot‘s license issued under these rules and having attained the age of sixty-five years, shall act as Pilot-in-Command or Co-pilot of an air
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
