Did research student Lois Sophia deserve to go to jail for raising a slogan against the Central government as a party leader was getting off an aircraft? Had she done this outside the airport, it would have been a clear expression of dissent with no room to view it as a ruckus. But just what were the legal provisions that the student’s conduct attracted?
Under Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Requirements, Series M, Part VI of 2017, an '’unruly passenger’ is defined as one “"who fails to respect the rules of conduct at an airport or on board an aircraft or to follow the instructions of the airport staff or crew members and thereby disturbs the good order and discipline at an airport or on board the aircraft.” If you go strictly by this provision, many passengers who get up and start taking out their bags from the overhead lockers, on landing, before the seatbelt sign is switched off, can be termed ‘unruly’ and booked! Does that happen? No. Did the party leader have a reason to feel insulted and embarrassed? Yes. There is a place for everything, including the right to protest. And the student’s behaviour may be interpreted as a disturbance of “good order and discipline.” But a crime? I doubt.
An indicative and not exhaustive list of actionable conduct under Clause 4.9 includes “consuming alcoholic beverages or drugs resulting in unruly behaviour, smoking in an aircraft, failure to obey the instructions of the pilot-in-command, using any threatening or abusive language or behaving in a physically threatening, abusive and disorderly manner towards a member of the crew or other passengers, intentionally interfering with the performance of the duties of a crew member and endangering the safety of an aircraft and persons” onboard. Three different levels of ‘unruly’ conduct have been categorised under Clause 4.10, namely, verbal harassment, physically abusive behaviour and life threatening behaviour.
As the incident is reported to have taken place inside the aircraft, the complaint should ideally have been filed by the pilot. The airline probably did not find it necessary to do this. Why? Because under Clause 4.11, the pilot-in-command “shall quickly assess if the cabin crew can control the unruly passenger and accordingly relay this information to the airline’s central control on the ground.” Under Clause 4.13, “upon landing of the aircraft, the airline representative shall lodge an FIR with the concerned security agency at the aerodrome, to whom, the unruly passenger shall be handed over.”
If it was a one-off slogan shouted, the need to “control” the passenger would not arise. It is pertinent to note that none of the civil aviation rules has been invoked against the student. However, the airport director forwarded the politician’s complaint to the police.
FIR No.285 of 2018 mentions only Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 75 (1) (c) of the “TN” City Police Act. I presume they meant Madras City Police Act. It is not clear if Section 505 IPC was added later. Section 290 IPC prescribes only a fine of two hundred rupees for committing a “public nuisance.” Section 75 (1) (c) of the Madras City Police Act deals with “violent, boisterous, disorderly, riotous or indecent” behaviour in a public place or “using any threatening, abusive or insulting words which causes or is likely to cause a breach of public peace”. If the slogan caused or was likely to cause a breach of public peace, why didn't other passengers complain?
Section 505 IPC dwells on ‘public mischief’ by making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report, with the intent to lead any officer to mutiny or disregard his duty, to cause fear or alarm to the public or inducement to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity or incitement to an offence against any class or community. The slogan cited attracting this provision, seems like a long stretch. To ostensibly protect ‘opinion’, right or wrong, an exception to this section, exists. Quite like the list of ten exceptions to criminal defamation, it contains the words “reasonable grounds for believing that such statement is true” and is made “in good faith.”
The ideological bent of mind of the accused should be extraneous to the case, unless, as the complainant apprehended, she is part of an unlawful outfit, for which an investigation can jolly well be conducted. But the need to arrest a student on the strength of a mere slogan comes across as an overreaction. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police Vs Sandeep Kumar in a case where the accused had suppressed information about a criminal case that he was once involved in, while applying for a government job, observed that “at that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.” The court referred to the protagonist ‘Jean Valjean’ in Victor Hugo’s novel Les Miserables, in which for a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family, he was branded a thief for his whole life. “The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.”
(The writer is an advocate at the Madras high court, columnist & author)
