List of Current Affairs

Why in News? 

The tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171 near Ahmedabad, killing over 260 people, has sparked a nationwide call for judicial intervention.  

• A petition filed before the Supreme Court seeks suo motu action to ensure fair compensation, systemic aviation reforms, and support for affected families. 

What was the Background of Air India Flight Crash? 

• Air India Flight AI171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, crashed tragically just minutes after takeoff from Ahmedabad airport, resulting in one of India's most catastrophic aviation disasters.  
• This devastating incident has claimed the lives of more than 260 people and caused unprecedented collateral damage throughout the surrounding area 
• The crash occurred on a London-bound international flight, which subjects the incident to international aviation law and conventions. 
• The aircraft involved was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner operated by Air India on its London-bound international route, making it subject to international aviation conventions and compensation frameworks.  
• The crash occurred at the B.J. Medical College Hostel's mess area in Ahmedabad, resulting in over 260 fatalities including passengers, crew members, and ground victims. 
•  The collateral damage included direct impact on young medical students residing in the hostel, significant property damage to nearby residential and commercial areas, complete destruction of medical college hostel infrastructure, and major disruption to medical education and healthcare services in the region. 
• The incident has triggered what is anticipated to be India's largest aviation liability case, with total estimated damages exceeding ₹1,000 crores across multiple categories.  
• These damages encompass passenger compensation under international law frameworks, ground fatalities compensation under domestic tort law, extensive property damage claims from affected institutions and individuals, and aircraft hull loss valued between ₹1,040-1,450 crores during acquisition. 
• Dr. Saurav Kumar and Dr. Dhruv Chauhan have submitted a formal letter to the Chief Justice of India, seeking immediate judicial intervention through suo motu action by the Supreme Court.  
• The petition states the unprecedented nature of the disaster requiring extraordinary judicial response, with both petitioners being medical professionals who have a direct understanding of the impact on the medical community. 

Should the Supreme Court Proactively Intervene to Ensure Justice, Compensation, and Reform in the Wake of the Aviation Disaster? 

• The petitioners want the Supreme Court to take suo motu (on its own) cognizance without waiting for formal cases to be filed, emphasizing the urgency of the mass casualty situation and need for proactive judicial oversight to prevent prolonged legal battles. 
• Compensation Framework: 
  • Interim Relief: ₹50 lakhs immediate compensation per victim family, covering all categories including passengers, crew, medical personnel, ground casualties, and support staff. 
  • Final Compensation: Argues that Montreal Convention limits (~USD 200,000) are inadequate for Indian conditions, seeking compensation based on Indian living standards, dependency ratios, and economic factors, with parity between air and ground victims. 
• Expert Committee Formation Requests establishment of a High-Level Expert Committee including retired Supreme Court and High Court judges, aviation safety experts, actuaries, and economists to assess final compensation, ensure uniformity across victim categories, and develop standardized guidelines for future disasters. 
• Airline Obligations Demands Air India expedite claim settlements without bureaucratic delays, eliminate procedural hurdles, avoid forcing families into litigation, provide transparent communication, and establish dedicated support systems. 
• Government Responsibilities Seeks direction for immediate financial support beyond airline liability, comprehensive rehabilitation programs, employment opportunities for family members, educational scholarships for victims' children, and healthcare. 

What Compensation Principles Did the Supreme Court Establish in Triveni Kodkany v. Air India Ltd.,(2020)? 

Case Background: 

• An Air India Express flight crashed at Mangalore airport on 22nd May, 2010, killing a Regional Director of GTL Overseas. 
• The deceased's family filed a complaint before NCDRC claiming Rs 13.42 crores compensation. 
• Air India had already paid Rs 4 crores to the family and Rs 40 lakhs to the parents. 

Court Observations: 

• The judgment considered and applied the compensation calculation principles established by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017). 
• The entire Cost to Company (CTC) should be considered as annual income for compensation calculation. 
• Allowances like telephone or transport should not be deducted from total CTC. 
• Additional benefits like ESOPs cannot be included without evidence of guaranteed entitlement. 
• Personal expense deduction should be one-fourth when there are four dependents, not one-fifth. 

Court Directions: 

• The Supreme Court awarded Rs 7,64,29,437 as compensation - the largest individual amount for this air crash. 
• The Court applied 30% addition for future prospects since the deceased was a confirmed employee. 
• Interest at 9% per annum was directed on the same basis as awarded by NCDRC. 
• The balance amount must be paid within two months of receiving the certified copy of the order. 

What is the Law on Victim Compensation in Aviation Disasters? 

• International flights are governed by the Montreal Convention 1999, which establishes liability rules for passenger death or injury, with India ratifying this convention in 2009 through the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act. 
• Airlines face strict liability for passenger deaths and injuries up to 100,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) per passenger, meaning compensation must be paid without requiring proof of negligence on the carrier's part. 
• Current compensation amounts to approximately Rs. 1.54 to 1.82 crores per passenger based on the updated SDR value of 128,821 to 151,880 as of October 2024, with 1 SDR equaling roughly Rs. 120. 
• Ground fatalities and collateral damage fall outside the Montreal Convention's scope and are instead governed by domestic tort law and may trigger class-action lawsuits treating all victims equally regardless of whether they were passengers or ground casualties. 
• Additional compensation beyond the SDR limit is possible if negligence is proven, and Indian courts have awarded significantly higher amounts in individual cases, such as Rs. 7.64 crores to the heirs of a Regional Director killed in an air crash. 
• Indian courts calculate compensation using the Pranay Sethi guidelines, which consider factors like the deceased's age, employment status, and number of dependents, with future income prospects enhanced by 15-50% depending on age brackets. 
• Airlines can make advance payments to meet immediate economic needs of victims' families without admitting liability, and such payments can be offset against final settlement amounts as demonstrated by TATA Group's announcement of Rs. 1 crore per passenger. 
• Mass aviation disasters may trigger absolute liability principles similar to the Bhopal Gas tragedy, where enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous activities owe an absolute, non-delegable duty to prevent harm regardless of reasonable care taken. 
• All compensation claims under the Montreal Convention must be filed within two years of the incident, though aviation-related investigations and settlements typically take years to resolve due to their complex nature.

Source:  High Court of Kerala 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan has held that a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is not maintainable when the petitioner has already been granted the interim relief sought, as such a petitioner cannot be considered an "aggrieved person" entitled to appeal. 

• The High Court of Kerala held this in the matter of The Principal v. Union of India & Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of The Principal v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• The Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre, located in Kasaragod district, was compelled to demolish their dental hospital due to the widening of the National Highway. 
• Although the college completed construction of a new dental hospital building, it had not yet become functional at the time of the legal proceedings. 
• To ensure continuity of operations, the college established a tie-up arrangement with the District Hospital, Kanhangad, with proper approval from relevant authorities for clinical training of students. 
• The Kerala University of Health Sciences, acting upon a request from the Director of Medical Education, issued a communication dated 24th February 2025 directing the college to provide details of all BDS students and house surgeons. 
• This communication was issued with the specific intention of reallocating students from the dental college on the grounds that it allegedly lacked adequate hospital facilities. 
• The college management approached the Kerala High Court through a writ petition seeking to quash this communication and prevent the proposed student reallocation. 
• The Single Judge granted a favorable interim stay of three months on all proceedings related to the student reallocation directive. 
• Despite receiving the interim relief they had originally sought, the college was dissatisfied with the limited duration and scope of the protection offered. 
• Consequently, the college filed a writ appeal challenging the very interim order that had been granted in their favor, seeking more comprehensive and extended protection for the institution. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Division Bench observed that a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, cannot be maintained when the petitioner has already received the interim relief they originally sought from the Single Judge. 
• The court observed that only a person who is genuinely aggrieved by an order possesses the legal standing to challenge it through the appellate process, and a successful petitioner cannot claim to be aggrieved by a favourable order. 
• Relying on the precedent in K.S. Das v. State of Kerala (2022), the court clarified that appeals against interim orders are permissible only when such orders substantially affect the rights or liabilities of parties or cause significant prejudice. 
• The court noted that appealable orders must fall within the category of 'intermediate orders' as recognized by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977), and should not be merely ad-interim or procedural orders. 
• The Division Bench stated that when a petitioner requires additional directions beyond the scope of granted interim relief, the proper remedy is filing an interlocutory application within the original writ petition rather than challenging the favourable order. 
• The court concluded that the writ appeal was beyond the scope of Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act since the appellant was not an aggrieved party regarding the interim order they were challenging. 
• Consequently, the appeal failed on grounds of maintainability and was dismissed, with the court clarifying that this dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek further directions through appropriate interlocutory applications. 
• The court vacated the interim order dated 16th April 2025 that was granted in the writ appeal, while preserving the petitioner's right to approach the original writ petition for any additional relief. 

What is the Writ Appeal Against Interim Order? 

• A writ appeal is a statutory right of appeal provided against judgments and orders of a Single Judge exercising original jurisdiction in constitutional courts, with the scope generally governed by specific provisions in High Court Acts. 
• Interim orders are temporary directions issued by courts during the pendency of main proceedings to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm, but not all interim orders are appealable under law. 
• An appeal against an interim order is maintainable only when such order substantially affects the rights or liabilities of parties or causes significant prejudice that cannot be remedied later, distinguishing between different categories based on their nature and impact. 
• The law recognizes 'intermediate orders' as those that are neither purely procedural nor final dispositive orders but have substantial impact on proceedings, while ad-interim orders of temporary nature are generally not appealable. 
• The fundamental principle of appellate jurisdiction requires that only an 'aggrieved person' who has suffered legal injury or adverse impact from an order has the standing to file an appeal against that order. 
• A party who has received favourable relief from a court cannot be considered an aggrieved person and lacks legal standing to challenge that favourable order through appeal, as they have not suffered any legal injury. 
• When a party requires modifications or additional directions beyond the scope of a granted interim order, the appropriate remedy is to seek such relief through interlocutory applications in the original proceedings rather than challenging the existing favourable order through appeal.