When a drunken Shankar Mishra relieved himself on a fellow 70-year-old woman passenger on an Air India New York-New Delhi flight, little did he know that he would not be forgiven for his ‘mistake’. Jaison Wilson explores the aftermath of the incident
In a country of more than a billion people, a man relieving himself in public is generally ‘accepted’ and not considered a topic of much discussion until a 34-year-old Mishra, travelling business class on an Air India New York-New Delhi flight, got drunk and conducted himself in a disorderly manner and allegedly relieved himself on a 70-year-old female passenger, according to DGCA.
The incident reportedly happened on November 26, 2022, and was reported following the complaint of the co-passenger. Mishra’s employer — Wells Fargo — an American multinational financial services company headquartered in California with an office in Bellandur in Bangalore has since sacked him.
After an FIR was registered against him, Mishra, a resident of Mumbai, tried to abscond and changed his location after switching off his mobile phone. But he was tracked down and arrested in the middle of the night from a service apartment in Bengaluru on January 7.
He was booked under sections 294 (obscene act in a public place), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 510 (misconduct in public by a drunken person) of the IPC and under Aircraft Rules. Though both the complainant and accused are not from Delhi, the FIR was registered by the IGI Airport police in the national capital. He was then sent to judicial custody for 14 days.
Admitting the obscene act and later denial
In the initial bail plea, Mishra’s lawyer argued that though he drank too much on the flight, his intentions were not ‘sexual’ in nature, submitting that the ‘unzipping incident was not for ‘sexual desire’.
Mishra’s counsel said though his act was obscene, it was not driven by sexual desire nor aimed at outraging the complainant’s modesty. It was argued that Section 354 dealt with sexual harassment, questioning the relevance of the Act in the case.
However, days after admitting to the obscene act, in a surprising u-turn, Mishra denied his actions and said the woman soiled herself on the seat. His counsel said that the complainant was suffering from a prostate-related disease, which ‘several Kathak dancers seem to suffer from’.
“She herself urinated as she was suffering from some disease related to the prostate. The seating system was such that no one could go to her seat,” the counsel representing Mishra submitted in the court.
“Her seat could only be approached from behind, and in any case, the urine could not reach to seat’s front area. Also, the passenger sitting behind the complainant did not make any such complaint,” he argued.
The complainant rubbishing his allegations said, “The allegations are completely false and concocted and by their very nature are disparaging and derogatory. The allegations are also in complete contradiction and a complete volte-face of the statements and the pleaded case of the accused in his bail application,” said advocate Ankur Mahindro, representing the complainant.
“The accused, instead of being remorseful for the utterly disgusting act committed by him, has adopted a campaign of spreading misinformation and falsities with the intent of further harassing the victim,” he said further.
Twists and the future of the case
Mishra’s initial bail plea was junked by the court and it had come down heavily on him saying, “What he did was utterly disgusting and repulsive and shocked the civic consciousness”. His act was sufficient to outrage the modesty of any woman, it was observed by Metropolitan Magistrate Komal Garg on January 11 while his judicial custody was continuing two days prior to the incident.
The alleged act in itself prima facie reflects the intention of the accused, she had said. The judge noted that as per the record, the accused had failed to join the investigation even after a notice was issued to him under section 41A CrPC and his presence could be secured only upon the execution of a non-bailable warrant.
“It has also come on record that the accused has tried contacting the victim and the possibility of the accused influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out,” the court noted. Further, as per the report of the investigating officer, other witnesses are yet to be examined and the probe is at a very initial stage, the order said while refusing him bail initially. After 20 days, on January 31, Mishra got some relief as Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, Harjyot Singh Bhalla allowed him to bail on a bond of Rs 1 lakh. The observations became complex when the matter came to the sessions court from the magistrate’s court.
The court while allowing bail to Mishra, also noted some ‘contradictions’ in the case with one of the eyewitnesses who sat close to the complainant woman and her version. However, the court said, “Her statement, which, of course, cannot also be completely brushed aside at his stage,” adding that her claim is “more of a matter of trial”.
It was observed that considering the prima facie material against Mishra, the victim’s statement has sufficient evidence. However, her version has certain claims including the involvement of a co-passenger. During the course of the hearing, cops told the court that the incident defamed India internationally. The judge observed that the witnesses named by the prosecution “are not deposing in your (police) favour”.
Impacts of the incident
Air India on January 20 imposed a four-month flying ban on Mishra , in addition to the 30-day ban it had imposed on the individual earlier.
“The independent three-member internal committee under the chairmanship of the former district judge had concluded that Shankar Mishra is covered under the definition of ‘unruly passenger’ and is banned from flying for a period of four months as per the relevant provisions of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR),” an Air India spokesperson said in a statement.
The passenger has already been put on the airline’s ‘no-fly list’. However, other airlines can take their own decision on whether any ban should be imposed on the individual.
Following the incident, Air India has reviewed its alcohol service policy, saying that the cabin crew should be attentive to identifying guests who might be consuming their own alcohol. It also said the cabin crew should behave with the passengers in a polite manner, and not call the guests ‘drunk’ or persuade them for ‘one last drink’ if they have had enough,” as per the new policy.
Under the reviewed guidelines, cabin crew may refuse to serve liquor or remove any unconsumed alcohol in case a guest consumes his own liquor, and where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the guest’s faculties are impaired by alcohol to an extent that will present a hazard to the aircraft, to persons on board (crew or guests) or to the guest himself.
On January 20, aviation regulator DGCA imposed a fine of Rs 30 lakh on Air India and suspended the licence of the pilot-in-command of the New York-New Delhi flight. The regulator had also imposed a penalty of Rs 3 lakh on the director of in-flight services of Air India for failing to discharge her duties. As per the regulator, the incident of passenger’s misbehaviour which occurred on the AI-102 flight on November 26, 2022 came to the notice of DGCA on January 4, 2023.
Unruly passengers’ data
“Committed by a minority of passengers, unruly incidents have a disproportionate impact, threatening safety, disrupting other passengers and crew and causing delays and diversions. However, due to loopholes in the existing international air law, such offences often go unpunished,” according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
As per the statistics of IATA, comparing with 1,000 flights - the incidents of unruly passengers who are intoxicated rose to 143 in 2022 from last year’s 121. However, it was 190 in 2020. The action taken rate in such incidents declined to 279 in 2022 from 350 in 2020.
Most reported unruly passenger incidents are classified as Level 1 – who are verbal in nature and can generally be characterized as anti-social behaviour. This would include being non-compliant with face coverings (where required) or failure to wear a seatbelt. Most of these cases can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion by cabin crew using de-escalation techniques and training.
That is not to trivialise these incidents, because there is always a danger of incidents escalating, they divert crew attention, and they do impact good order and discipline onboard.
Similarly, where someone is intoxicated but is not being unruly or disruptive, this is also likely to be classified as a Level 1 incident. An intoxicated passenger that is not able to follow safety instructions or is incapable of exiting the aircraft in an emergency evacuation is a risk.
Level 2 and Level 3 incidents are physical in nature and can be dangerous either to the crew or to other passengers. In the case where an unruly passenger assaults a member of the cabin crew, the injury sustained may mean they are unable to perform their primary duties.