Disruptive Behaviour Must Not Be Confused with Airing of Grievances, India’s New Unruly Passenger Rules
A disturbing phenomenon in aviation is unruly passenger behaviour. The International Air Transport Association has pointed out that in 2023, there was one incident for every 480 flights, up from one for every 568 flights in 2022. The trend is clear: air rage is on the rise globally, and India is no exception.
In response, India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation is proposing to amend rules such that airlines can directly impose a flying ban of up to 30 days without referring the matter to the competent authority. The DGCA has also broadened the concept of unruly behaviour with six new categories: smoking on board, consumption of alcohol on domestic flights, tampering with emergency exits, unauthorised use of life-saving equipment such as life jackets, engaging in protests or sloganeering, and unruly conduct arising from intoxication.
These changes are significant. They shift power from independent committees to airlines themselves, and they expand the definition of what constitutes unacceptable behaviour.
The Current System
Currently, airlines must report disruptive passengers to an independent committee, headed by a retired district and sessions judge, which will decide within 45 days whether to add them to the official no-fly list. This system was designed to ensure fairness, to prevent airlines from arbitrarily banning passengers, and to create a consistent standard across the industry.
But the process is slow. Forty-five days is a long time in the context of aviation safety. If a passenger is genuinely dangerous, should they be allowed to fly while the committee deliberates? The new rules address this by allowing airlines to act immediately.
The New Categories
Under the proposed amendments, unruly behaviour would now be monitored by airlines from the check-in counter, although the focus is on the flight since such behaviour can impact passenger safety and comfort. This expansion of scope is important. Behaviour that begins on the ground can escalate in the air.
The six new categories address specific concerns. Smoking on board is already prohibited, but the explicit mention signals that it will be taken seriously. Alcohol consumption on domestic flights is a grey area; the new rules clarify that it is unacceptable. Tampering with emergency exits and unauthorised use of life-saving equipment are obvious safety risks that warrant immediate action.
The categories of “engaging in protests or sloganeering” and “unruly conduct arising from intoxication” are more subjective. What counts as a protest? What level of sloganeering crosses the line? The potential for overreach is real.
The Problem of Legitimate Grievance
It would seem tolerance levels are dipping, with several incidents such as attempts to open emergency exits and accessing lifesaving equipment without reason. Reports also cite passengers abusing crew and fellow travellers, and the loud chanting of prayers and bhajans. These are genuine concerns that need to be addressed.
But there is also the problem of legitimate grievance. When airlines cancel flights, delay departures, or provide poor service, passengers have a right to be angry. The question is where to draw the line between legitimate expression of grievance and unruly behaviour that threatens safety.
The amendments seek to empower airlines and cabin crew to act immediately, unlike before, when such behaviour was overshadowed by lengthy No-Fly List procedures that focused on more serious issues such as national security. Whether the proposed changes would lead to high-handedness and offset the balance of power between passengers and airline staff is a moot point.
The IndiGo Precedent
Aviation experts stress that the cabin crew’s primary role is flight safety. However, a credible argument against the proposed amendments would cite the IndiGo fiasco where the airline’s response to pilot deployment rules was found to be influenced by revenue considerations, leading to much anger among passengers.
In that case, the airline’s decisions prioritised commercial interests over passenger welfare. When passengers expressed their anger, they were not being unruly; they were reacting to genuine mistreatment. Under the new rules, would such legitimate anger be classified as “unruly behaviour”? The potential for misuse is clear.
It would seem that the amendments would empower airlines against “unruly” behaviour arising from legitimate anger over unfair practices too. So, while the amendments may be necessary in the overall interest of flight safety and a smooth passenger experience, they should not serve other purposes such as deflecting passenger grievances.
The Need for Safeguards
One safeguard would be to make a distinction between “unruly” behaviour on the ground versus disruptive behaviour during flight. A passenger who is angry at the check-in counter is different from a passenger who is attempting to open an emergency exit at 35,000 feet. The level of threat is different, and the response should be calibrated accordingly.
Safeguards are needed to allow redress against airline overreach. If an airline abuses its power to ban passengers, there should be a mechanism for appeal. The independent committee system currently provides that safeguard; removing it entirely would create a power imbalance.
The Global Context
India is not alone in grappling with unruly passengers. The IATA statistics show a global trend. Other countries have implemented various measures, from fines to criminal prosecution to no-fly lists. The challenge is to balance safety with rights, security with fairness.
The aviation industry operates on trust. Passengers trust that airlines will get them safely to their destination. Airlines trust that passengers will behave responsibly. When that trust breaks down, everyone loses.
Conclusion: Balancing Safety and Rights
The DGCA’s proposed amendments are a response to a real problem. Unruly passenger behaviour is increasing, and the current system is too slow to address immediate safety concerns. Giving airlines the power to impose temporary flying bans makes sense.
But power without accountability is dangerous. The amendments must include safeguards to prevent misuse. They must distinguish between genuine safety threats and legitimate expressions of grievance. They must provide passengers with a means of appeal when airlines overreach.
The goal should be a system that keeps everyone safe while respecting everyone’s rights. That balance is achievable, but it requires careful design and constant vigilance.
Q&A: Unpacking India’s New Unruly Passenger Rules
Q1: What changes is the DGCA proposing to rules on unruly passengers?
The DGCA proposes to allow airlines to directly impose a flying ban of up to 30 days without referring the matter to an independent committee. Currently, airlines must report incidents to a committee headed by a retired judge, which decides within 45 days whether to add passengers to the no-fly list. The amendments also add six new categories of unruly behaviour.
Q2: What are the six new categories of unruly behaviour?
The new categories are: smoking on board, consumption of alcohol on domestic flights, tampering with emergency exits, unauthorised use of life-saving equipment (such as life jackets), engaging in protests or sloganeering, and unruly conduct arising from intoxication. Behaviour would be monitored from check-in, though focus remains on in-flight conduct affecting safety and comfort.
Q3: Why are these amendments controversial regarding legitimate passenger grievances?
Critics argue the broad definitions could allow airlines to classify legitimate anger over unfair practices—such as cancelled flights or poor service—as “unruly behaviour.” The IndiGo fiasco, where revenue considerations influenced responses to pilot deployment rules, is cited as an example where passenger anger was justified. The amendments could empower airlines to deflect grievances by labelling complainants unruly.
Q4: What safeguards are needed to prevent misuse of these powers?
Experts suggest distinguishing between ground-based “unruly” behaviour and in-flight disruptive behaviour that genuinely threatens safety. A passenger angry at check-in poses a different risk than one attempting to open an emergency exit mid-flight. Safeguards should include appeal mechanisms against airline overreach and clear criteria distinguishing legitimate grievance from safety threats.
Q5: What is the global context for this issue?
IATA data shows unruly passenger incidents increasing globally: one per 480 flights in 2023, up from one per 568 in 2022. Countries are implementing various measures from fines to criminal prosecution to no-fly lists. India’s challenge is balancing safety with passenger rights, ensuring that measures to address genuine threats do not become tools to suppress legitimate grievances.
