In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that state police have a limited role in addressing violations at airports, affirming that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of aviation authorities as outlined by the Aircraft Act, 1934. The ruling, delivered by Justices A S Oka and Manmohan, emphasized that the Aircraft Act serves as a “complete code” for ensuring the safety and security of civil aviation and aerodrome operations.
The case arose from an appeal by the Jharkhand government against a Jharkhand High Court decision which had quashed an FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Manoj Tiwari, among others. The MPs were previously accused of coercing air traffic control at Deoghar airport into allowing their aircraft to take off after sunset in August 2022, a clear violation of civil aviation regulations.
Justice Manmohan, who authored the judgment, stated that any offense under the Aircraft Act could only be recognized with the complaint made by or with prior sanction from aviation authorities. This framework restricts the state police’s involvement to merely collecting and forwarding investigative material to authorized officers under the Aircraft Act, who then decide whether to file a complaint.
The Supreme Court specified, “The local police can only forward the material collected by it during the investigation to such authorized officers. It shall be open to the authorized officer to take a decision in accordance with law with regard to filing or non-filing of a complaint.”
Additionally, the court highlighted that the Aircraft Act prescribes special procedures for taking cognizance of offenses, underscoring the necessity of adhering to these legal structures to avoid judicial overreach and ensure proper enforcement of aviation laws.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court also dismissed the present appeals from the state of Jharkhand, granting them the liberty to forward their collected investigation material to the appropriate aviation authority within four weeks. This authority is then tasked with deciding the necessity of a formal complaint under the Aircraft Act and its corresponding rules.
Furthermore, the court ruled out any offenses under IPC sections 336 (endangering human life) and 447 (criminal trespass) against the MPs, citing a lack of evidence for rash or negligent behavior that endangered lives or involved forcible entry.
