Delhi High Court Demands Thorough Investigation in In-Flight Disruption Case

The Delhi High Court has sent an in-flight misconduct case back to the Trial Court. Allegations include attempts to open an aircraft mid-air door and threatening crew members. The court emphasized the need for testimonies from independent witnesses before moving forward.


Devdiscourse News Desk | Updated: 12-09-2025 15:06 IST | Created: 12-09-2025 15:06 IST
Delhi High Court Demands Thorough Investigation in In-Flight Disruption Case
Visuals from outside Delhi High Court (File Photo/ANI). Image Credit: ANI
  • Country:
  • India

The Delhi High Court has ordered a case, involving alleged in-flight disruptive behavior on a Delhi-bound international flight, to be re-examined by the Trial Court. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma indicated that the investigation was incomplete, primarily due to the absence of independent witness testimonies despite considerable elapsed time.

The prosecution claims that the accused passenger attempted to open a plane door mid-flight, verbally assaulted the crew, issued dangerous threats, and damaged airline property. These acts led to the incident being categorized as a high-level safety breach as per aviation regulations. A written warning was issued by the captain following civil aviation guidelines, and the passenger was restrained for the flight's remainder for security reasons.

The defense argued that the accused's behavior was due to a medical condition, citing relevant assessments and records, and requested legal protection under mental health considerations. However, both the State and the complainant contested this claim, asserting the actions were deliberate and a severe aviation safety threat.

The High Court highlighted the importance of accounts from independent co-passengers, who witnessed the captain's warning and the restraint of the passenger, for fair case resolution. It noted that the Trial Court should not have moved to frame charges without a supplementary chargesheet including these statements. The case was remanded with instructions for the investigation agency to explain delays and gather additional evidence before reassessing charges.

The Court specified that its observations were limited to the current petition and should not impact future proceedings. (ANI)

(With inputs from agencies.)

Give Feedback