Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Indian Pilots Guild - Appellant
Versus
Director General of Civil Aviation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2268 of 2022 and CM Appls. 6523 of 2022, 15469 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 16433 of 2022 and CM Appl. 51627 of 2022
Decided On : 02-12-2022
Testing requirements for aviation personnel concerning psychoactive substances are essential for safety and must align with clarified standards, with procedural safeguards in place before disciplinary actions are taken.
Headnote:(A) Civil Aviation Requirement - Psychoactive Substances - Clarifications on testing procedures for aviation personnel issued on 27th September 2021, addressing concerns such as the inclusion of lifestyle medicines, availability of Medical Review Officers (MROs), and guidelines for personnel testing positive. (Paras 3, 5, 7)
(B) Aviation Safety - The necessity for testing aviation personnel for psychoactive substances is affirmed, with answers to specific concerns alleviating apprehensions. Responsible authorities are expected to implement the requirements with proper standards. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
Two petitions challenged the Civil Aviation Requirement concerning the examination of aviation personnel for psychoactive substances, raising concerns about the inclusion of lifestyle medicines and the availability of medical review officers.
Findings of Court:
The court clarified that the testing is strictly for designated substances and that personnel will not be immediately removed from duty without confirmatory testing.
Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of the CAR concerning testing, the qualification of medical personnel, and procedural clarity for aviation personnel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that psychoactive substance testing is vital for aviation safety and that clarifications provided by the DGCA adequately addressed the concerns raised, endorsing the CAR's implementation.
Result: The petitions were disposed of with no impediment to the implementation of the CAR.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. concerns regarding civil aviation requirements. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on car implementation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. no impediments in implementing car. (Para 8) |
| 5. next steps and scheduling. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 15469/2022(for delay) in W.P.(C) 2268/2022
2. This is an application for condonation of 18 days delay in filing the counter affidavit. The delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 6523/2022(for interim stay) in W.P.(C) 2268/2022
CM APPL. 51627/2022(for stay) in W.P.(C) 16433/2022
3. These are two petitions seeking quashing of the `Civil Aviation Requirement Section 5 - Air Safety, Series F Part V, Issue I dated 27th September, 2021 (hereinafter `CAR')', issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The said requirements relate to the procedure for examination of aviation personnel, including pilots, cabin crews and ATCs, for detection of consumption of Psychoactive Substances. These requirements are stated to be issued on 31st January, 2022. The purpose of these requirements, called Civil Aviation Requirements ("CAR"), is to detect any behavioural, cognitive and physiological changes due to use of such substances by aviation personnel.
4. There are various apprehensions expressed by pilots and Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs). To assuage these apprehensions, pursuant to directions issued by Justice Jyoti Singh, Group Captain Y.P. Dahiya, Director- Medical Services, Directorate of Medical Services, DGCA, is present in Court along with other responsible officials. Broadly, the concerns raised today are in three categories:
i. There is no provision to consider the consumption of lifestyle medicines such as hypertension medicines or anti-diabetic medicines, etc.
ii. Sufficient number of qualified MROs i.e., Medical Review Officers, are not available in India. As a sufficient number of MROs are not available in India, the working of the rules is itself ambiguous.
iii. There are no guidelines for appellate remedies or other remedies, if action is taken under CAR against aviation personnel.
iv. Lack of uniform testing mechanisms across different laboratories.
5. Submissions have been made by Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neetika Bajaj Advocate on behalf of the Petitioners and Ms. Anjana Gosain, duly assisted by Dr. Dahiya and the team from DGCA for the Respondents. After hearing submissions, the clarifications on all the four issues, are recorded as under:
I. Consumption of lifestyle medicines
It has been clarified that as per Clause 5 of CAR, testing would be only for the following Psychoactive Substances:
a) Amphetamine and Amphetamine type stimulants
b) Opiates and metabolites
c) Cannabis (Marijuana) as THC
d) Cocaine
e) Barbiturates
f) Benzodiazepine
According to the DGCA, the above substances do not generally include hypertension medicines or anti-diabetic medications. Thus, there is no need to give any specific exception, as the positive testing is only for the above six substances.
II. Sufficient number of qualified MROs
The MROs that are currently available are very few in number. However, over time it is expected that the Respondent would identify doctors who would undergo online courses and get the requisite qualifications, to increase the number of MROs available in India.
III. Guidelines/remedies if any personnel is found non-negative or positive upon testing.
The apprehension on this issue is that immediately upon any staff member being found to be non-negative or positive, the said staff is put off duty.
On behalf of the Respondents, it is clarified that the random 10% of personnel who are tested have to first undergo a Screening Test. If in the said test, the personnel tests positive, then a Confirmatory Test is administered. Only if the person is tested positive in the confirmatory test, as per Clause 7 and 8.2 the M
