Air India-Sena MP row: Govt maintaining official no-fly list is a bad idea

The airline-wide boycott of Ravindra Gaikwad, a member of Parliament belonging to the Shiv Sena, following his assault of a duty manager on an Air India flight, has prompted the civil aviation ministry to consider drawing up an official no-fly list as well as rules specifying the grounds on which airlines can bar people from travelling. Nothing could be more ill-advised. Instead of applauding the private airlines for supporting their public sector competitor in a united reprimand of the loutish behaviour of an elected representative, these moves send all the wrong signals and open the door for government intervention in a matter that is best dealt with at the level of individual airlines. For one, the moves suggest that the government is equivocal about Mr Gaikwad’s conduct. His attack was doubly reprehensible because it was a blatant misuse of power provoked by the airline’s inability to meet an MP entitlement — in this case, a business-class seat on an all-economy flight. It is astonishing that Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan should consider a privilege motion by the Shiv Sena on the airline boycott of their MP. Surely, there are more important issues for members to consider.

Moreover, these rules and no-fly lists will appropriate from the airline industry, in which the private sector dominates, the right guaranteed under international aviation law to accept or decline passengers on grounds of flight safety. Already, there are reports that rules could be amended to allow Mr Gaikwad to avail of air travel because, as Ms Mahajan reportedly said, an MP “can’t take a train every time” to attend Parliament. Mandating the dos and don’ts of public behaviour is, at best, a hazardous business for governments when set against a citizen’s rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Such rules run the risk of opening room for litigation. The experience in the US, where the list was mobilised after 9/11, has been far from happy, not least because people can be assigned to it without even being informed.

The more sinister aspect of the US no-fly list is that there are no specific guidelines on who qualifies; anything can trigger the ban, from an intemperate social media entry to declining to be an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is no surprise this loosened protection of civil rights gives free reign to social prejudice — the bulk of those who end up on the list are of Muslim provenance, and the possibility of airlines mistaking similar-sounding names multiplies several times over. The problem became so acute that in 2014, a US court declared the method of compiling the no-fly list unconstitutional in response to a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. In India, where politics is being transparently polarised, there is little to assure the ordinary passenger of impartiality. The possibility of a no-fly list featuring people that the Indian government simply does not approve of is high. An informal no-fly list is best left to the airlines’ discretion. Like hotels and restaurants, their staff is adept at spotting potential troublemakers. Left to themselves, they will probably ensure that Mr Gaikwad travels by train in the foreseeable future.