Court Calls for Records and Seeks Clarification on Continued Exemption Amidst Allegations of Rule Inconsistency
In a significant development at the Madras High Court, Justice V. Lakshminarayanan has admitted a writ petition challenging the exemption granted by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The exemption is alleged to be inconsistent with the Aircraft Act, 1934, and the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR).
The petitioner, Y.R. Rajaveni, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Sanjay Ghose, contends that the exemption, which pertains to compliance with specific paragraphs of the CAR for a particular class of aircraft, violates the provisions of the parent Act. The exemption, dated December 5, 2025, has sparked concerns over its adherence to statutory mandates.
Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General, representing the DGCA, justified the exemption by highlighting the operational challenges faced by the concerned airline, which could lead to large-scale flight cancellations. However, the petitioner argues that the exemption was granted without adequately considering the CAR.
The court has issued a Rule Nisi, calling for relevant records within four weeks. It has directed the DGCA to file a counter affidavit by January 5, 2026, specifying whether the exemption will be extended beyond the initial period. An interim order request will be considered post-hearing the second respondent.
The case is set for further hearing on January 6, 2026, with the court awaiting comprehensive submissions from the DGCA and the second respondent.
Bottom Line:
Challenge against exemption granted by DGCA under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 - Petitioner contended exemption inconsistent with Aircraft Act, 1934 and CAR requirements - Court issued Rule Nisi, called for records, and directed the respondent to file counter affidavit.
Statutory provision(s): Aircraft Act, 1934; Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937; Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR).
