Delhi HC Rejects Compulsory Blood and Urine Tests for Airlines' Crew, Emphasizes Efficacy of Breath Analyser (BA) Tests as per CAR

The present case concerns the issue of conducting blood and urine tests on airline crew members. The Delhi High Court examined whether it is practical for airlines to carry out such tests and if the existing precautionary measures under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) are sufficient to prevent false positives in breath analyser (BA) tests.

LEGAL ISSUE

The primary issue before the court was whether airlines should be obligated to conduct blood and urine tests in addition to BA tests, considering the feasibility, practicality, and cost implications of implementing such measures.

HIGH COURT'S DECISION

Justice Gaurang Kanth opined that the CAR already contains provisions to rule out the possibility of false positives to the maximum extent and that implementing blood and urine tests at airports would impose additional operational costs and unnecessary burdens on airlines. The court noted that CAR does not explicitly impose an obligation on operators to conduct blood and urine tests, but rather focuses on BA tests. The responsibility to conduct blood and urine tests lies with the Officer-in-Charge of the Airport, even in cases of accidents.

The court emphasized that CAR's procedures are designed to eliminate the possibility of false positives, thereby ensuring the reliability of BA tests. Considering the impracticality and infeasibility of conducting blood and urine tests at airports, the court concluded that there is no obligation on airlines to perform these tests.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

The case was filed by a pilot of Vistara airlines who challenged the orders passed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which suspended him for three months after he failed the BA test, showing 0.004% alcohol in his blood. The pilot, asserting that the BA test was a false positive, underwent blood and urine tests at NABL accredited laboratories, which revealed no alcohol consumption.

After considering the case, the court rejected the pilot's plea, stating that there were no material irregularities or perversities in the order. The court emphasized the responsibility of a pilot in ensuring the safety of passengers and crew members, and upheld the provisions of CAR stipulating a permissible blood alcohol content of 'zero.' The pilot was found to have violated the provisions of CAR and Aircraft Rules 1937 by reporting for duty after consuming alcohol.

The court concluded, "The job of a pilot is a job of responsibility. When he is on duty, he is carrying the responsibility of the lives of the passengers and crew members on board his flight. Due to this huge responsibility, CAR stipulates the permissible amount of blood alcohol content as 'zero'. The petitioner should have wholeheartedly followed the provisions of CAR and should not have reported for duty after consuming alcohol."