Letter by 812 Foundation to Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation
Article written by the President of 812 Foundation criticizing the Letter-to-Chief Justice of India
812 Foundation’s Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court
After 3 years of work and research and documents received through the Right to Information Act, 812 Foundation filed a PIL (Writ Petition (civil) 749/2013) in the Supreme Court bringing the attention of the Supreme Court to the critical state of Aviation Safety. Unfortunately, the Court disposed of the Writ stating that the court was not an expert in technicalities and converted the Writ Petition into a representation and sent it to the Secretay, Ministry of Civil Aviation for action.
Supreme Court Order in the PIL on Aviation Safety
The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed the PIL filed by 812 Foundation by converting it to a representation to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In the words of Capt.Mohan Ranganathan “To refer a PIL to the perpetrator of the grievances is a sign of sure unwisdom. This PIL was to highlight the failure and the judges brushed it aside”. 812 Foundation filed a Review Petition against this order. (SC Order)
Review Petition of the 812 Foundation SC
812 Foundation promptly filed a Review Petition in the Supreme Court against its order in the PIL on Aviation Safety on the grounds of ‘violation of Principles of Natural Justice’. Natural Justice says that “No person can be a Judge in his own Cause” and by referring the PIL as a representation to the Ministry of Civil Aviation against whom the PIL was filed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court violated the principles of Natural Justice.
Role of Indian Judiciary in Aviation Safety
On the occasion of the 99th birthday of the great Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, Universal Publications released a book “A Surfeit of Tributes to India’s Greatest Living Judge Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer” in which his nephew, an accomplished pilot and Aviation Safety expert, Mohan Ranganathan wrote an article titled ‘Role of Indian Judiciary in Aviation Safety’. 812 Foundation thanks Capt.Mohan Ranganathan and Universal Publications for allowing to publish the article on its website.
Private Complaint lodged in JMFC II, Mangalore
On 6 March 2012, the 812 Foundation filed a private complaint with the Magistrate in JMFC II, Mangalore. The Private Complaint was registered after the refusal of the Investigating Officer to register a fresh FIR on the 812 Crash and also the refusal of the Commissioner of Police to direct registration of the FIR. On 19 February 2013, the Magistrate took cognizance of the Complaint under Sec.304A of the IPC. However, a Criminal Petition was filed by Air India and Airport Authority of India in the High Court of Karnataka and the trial was stayed by the Court.
The Criminal Petition Filed by Air India in the High Court of Karnataka
Air India approached the High Court of Karnataka without giving any notice to the 812 Foundation to seek a stay of the Trial. The grounds for seeking a stay was made out on the basis of ‘prior sanction to prosecute’ under Sec.197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court of Karnataka granted the stay even when no notice was issued and when ‘no urgency or imminent arrest’ was made out by Air India. The High Court not only stayed the trial against persons who approached the Court, but the entire trial was stayed.
The Reply of 812 Foundation in the Criminal Petition filed by Air India
The 812 Foundation has filed its reply stating that the provisions of sec.197 of Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to the officials of Air India and also drawn the attention of the Court to the ‘habitual violations of law’ that Air India engages in, thereby threatening the lives of its passengers and others on ground.
The Criminal Petition Filed by Airport Authority of India in the High Court of Karnataka
Airport Authority of India approached the High Court of Karnataka without giving any notice to the 812 Foundation to seek a stay of the Trial which was already stayed by an earlier order of the Court. The grounds for seeking a stay was made out on the basis of ‘prior sanction to prosecute’ under Sec.197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Reply of 812 Foundation in the Criminal Petition filed by Airports Authority of India:
The 812 Foundation has filed its reply stating that the provisions of sec.197 of Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to the officials of Airport Authority of India and also drawn the attention of the Court to the PIL filed in the High Court of Karnataka in 1997 and 2002 in which, one Mr.Arthur Pereira had specifically brought the attention of the court to the serious safety concerns of the Mangalore Airport.
The PIL filed by the President of the 812 Foundation in the High Court of Bombay against the CBI to investigate financial irregularities in Air India:
While researching on the issue of the compensation of the pilot of IX 812, the President of the 812 Foundation came across a systematic ploy of Air India to siphon of money to foreign country through the expat pilots. A complaint was registered with the CBI along with documentary evidence, but the CBI did not act on the complaint. In October 2013, Mr.Jitendra Bhargava, ex-employee of Air India authored a book titled “the Descent of Air India”, which documents the financial irregularities in Air India. It speaks of another scam in ‘Biometric Identification System’, a case which the CBI instituted preliminary inquiry against the Former Civil Aviation Minister, Mr.Praful Patel. The Judgement of Superior Court, Ontario, Canada convicting a Canadian citizen for ‘offering’ bribes to Mr.Praful Patel and other senior officials of Air India records the completion of crimes in India, but unfortunately the CBI did not register any FIR. The PIL seeks registration of these crimes and investigation by the CBI under the monitoring of the High Court of Bombay.
The Judgement of the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala on interpretation of Montreal Convention as adopted by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972
The Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala interpreted the provisions of the Montreal Convention, as adapted by the Carriage by Air Act, to provide every passenger with a minimum of 120,000 SDR (special drawing rights) which would have resulted in every passenger being paid a minimum of about 75 Lakhs.
Article written by the President of 812 Foundation applauding the bold decision of the Single Judge
An Article was written by the President of the 812 Foundation applauding the bold decision of the Judge to fill the void and ensure that the life of every citizen had a base value. It was the sign of Judiciary ‘valuing’ the life of an Indian citizen outside of the traditional brackets.
The Judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala on interpretation of Montreal Convention as adopted by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972
The Division Bench overturned the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala and brought back the Judiciary back to the ‘traditional mindset’ where life of a citizen is valued based on laws and Judgments made in the feudal era.
Article written by the President of 812 Foundation criticizing the decision of the Division Bench:
An Article was written by the President of the 812 Foundation criticizing the decision of the Division Bench. A quick calculation is made to prove that the worth of life of a sitting Judge of a High Court or a Supreme Court by the traditional methods would be lesser than the minimum base price put on a life by the Single Judge.