The government today faced tough time in the Supreme Court to justify its policy of keeping out private airlines from ground handling duty, which is to be handed over to a consortium led by Air India or to the airport managing companies.
The apex court, which wanted to know from the government, whether such move would not hurt the efficiency of private airlines, sought a response from Ministry of Civil Aviation, Directorate General of Civil Aviation and other government bodies.
However, it did not stay the judgement of the Delhi High Court, which on March 4 asked private carriers to follow the directions of civil aviation regulator DGCA to enter into agreement with the firms approved by it for ground handling duties.
A Bench of Justice RV Raveendran and Justice AK Patnaik admitted the petition filed by Federation of Indian Airlines (FII), an umbrella body of private carriers, challenging the policy and issued notices to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and DGCA.
"When they have their own services, why they should GO for the services of others. Some joint venture with Air India would do... Would it be prompt to some body else," asked the bench when Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam was making submission.
Subramanium said ground handling duty has been taken away from the private airlines "keeping in view the security concerns".
However, the Bench said "It is right for you to make policy. But when something is going smoothly, you are just disturbing it."
The Bench further asked, "what prompted you for this? What was the security threat?"
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for federation and Indigo Airlines, submitted that the ground handling would be done by Air India, which was their competitor and would kill their competency.
The apex court also wondered that ban was imposed on airport of Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai and Kolkata but some other airports such as Jammu, Srinager, Amritsar and cochin were left out.
"Was there no security threat at Jammu, Srinagar or Cochin? Why there was selective security threat?" the Bench asked.
The Bench further asked from Gopal Subramaniam that whether he has travelled by Air India and Indigo, a private airlines.
"Try these airlines. You would start 10 minutes early. Any body who travels know it. We do not want to say any thing about the Air India. You are killing the efficiency of private airlines," the Bench said adding that the one of the option given to private airlines for outsourcing the ground handling duties was a Joint Venture between Air India and a firm.
"Who is in this JV? Is it not the national airlines? It is nothing else. The carriers, which are so competitive, you are trying to bring them on a common level of incapability," the Bench said.
It further said, "We have travelled by all airlines. They (private) fly on time. They do not wait for VIPs. It is common for all airlines."
"In the matter of policy, you are lord and master, but it should have some rationale. There is good governance and bad governance and here you have landed badly," the court said.
The apex court was hearing a petition filed by FII, challenging the high court's ruling, which upheld the government's new ground handling policy.
On security reasons, the policy permits only national carrier Air India and the airport operator (such as Airports Authority of India, GMR and GVK) to render ground handling services.
The private airlines federation in their petition had pointed out that the new policy has virtually forced them to assign their ground handling services either to Air India, which is one of their competitors or to common airport operators.
The third prospect of various private airlines selecting a common agency through competitive bidding to take over their ground handling services, too, does not seem feasible due to competition factor, the petitioners said.
The high court on March 4 had upheld the government's policy on ground handling services, saying it was not unjust or illegal.
Accepting the Centre's argument that the decision was taken on security reasons as the safety and security of general public was paramount, the high court had rejected the contention of the airlines that security facet has been introduced to curtail their commercial interests.
