Such Decisions Are Within Its Expertise & Jurisdiction: Delhi HC Upholds DGCA’s Power To Re-Classify Training Aircrafts
The Delhi High Court upheld DGCA’s jurisdiction to re-classify training aircrafts observing that being an expert regulatory authority, it holds the statutory mandate to classify and periodically reassess aircrafts based on evolving safety standards and technological advancements.
The Court stated that there was no “overreach of authority or a deviation from the procedural norms” in the Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s (DGCA) impugned notification re-classifying a Government Aviation Training Institute (GATI) aircraft to a ‘Light Sport Aircraft’ (LSA).
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “The DGCA, as an expert regulatory authority, holds the statutory mandate to classify and periodically reassess aircrafts based on evolving safety standards and technological advancements. This authority is explicitly conferred by Section 5A of the Aircraft Act, which empowers the DGCA to issue directives necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft operations.”
Advocate Samudra Sarangi appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Anjana Gosain represented the respondents.
The impugned notification was challenged as it reclassified the training aircraft from a "Normal" category to a "Light Sport Aircraft" (LSA) with a "Restricted Airworthiness Standard." This reclassification directly affected the training certifications of aspiring pilots with GATI.
The petitioners challenged the impugned notification asserting that such a critical decision should rest with the primary regulatory body itself, not a subsidiary department with limited jurisdiction.
The High Court explained that Section 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 empowered the DGCA to issue directives necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft operations. “Furthermore, Rule 29C of the Aircraft Rules elaborates on the DGCA’s role in establishing standards and procedures that align with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, ensuring global compliance and safety in aviation operations,” the Bench remarked.
The Bench noted that the classification of the Pipistrel VIRUS SW 121 Aircraft as an LSA under the Impugned Notification was a direct exercise of statutory powers conferred upon DGCA.
“The DGCA’s decision to reclassify is rooted in its responsibility to continuously monitor and update aircraft classifications as per current safety evaluations and the evolving understanding of aircraft capabilities and limitations. This action is consistent with the DGCA’s mandate to adapt regulatory measures to current safety needs and technical assessments,” the Court explained.
The Court stated that it could not “usurp” the functions of expert bodies or substitute its judgment in areas where technical expertise was essential.
Consequently, the Court held, “Impugned Notification by the DGCA is well within its jurisdiction, and the challenge raised by the Petitioners concerning the DGCA’s authority to effectuate such a reclassification does not hold.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Himanshu & Ors. v. Directorate General Of Civil Aviation & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5937)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Samudra Sarangi, Nitya Jain, Yoshita Sood and Priyal Sarawagi
Respondents: Advocates Anjana Gosain and Nippun Sharma; GP Vedansh Anand