IndiGo bars specially-abled child from boarding flight
The Hindu
DGCA starts probe.
IndiGo barred a specially-abled child from boarding a flight at the Ranchi airport as he was in "a state of panic", following which the aviation regulator DGCA has started a probe and asked the airline to submit a report, officials said on Sunday.
As the boy was prohibited from boarding the airline's Ranchi-Hyderabad flight on Saturday, his parents also decided to not take the flight, they noted.
DGCA chief Arun Kumar told PTI that the regulator has sought a report from IndiGo on this matter.
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is probing this incident and it will take appropriate action, he said.
When asked about the incident, IndiGo said, "In view of the safety of passengers, a specially-abled child could not board the flight with his family on May 7, as he was in a state of panic." The ground staff waited for him to calm down till the last minute but to no avail, it said.
The airline made the family comfortable by providing them a hotel stay and they flew the next morning to their destination, it said.
"We regret the inconvenience caused to the passengers. IndiGo prides itself on being an inclusive organisation, be it for employees or its customers; and over 75,000 specially-abled passengers fly with IndiGo every month," it said.
Pakistan coach Gary Kirsten stated that “not so great decision making” contributed to his side’s defeat to India in the Group-A T20 World Cup clash here on Sunday. The batting unit came apart in the chase, after being well placed at 72 for two. With 48 runs needed from eight overs, Pakistan found a way to panic and lose. “Maybe not so great decision making,” Kirsten said at the post-match press conference, when asked to explain the loss.
“We are judges and therefore, cannot act like Mughals of a bygone era ... the writ courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law,” the High Court of Karnataka observed while setting aside an order of a single judge, who in 2016 had extended the lease of a public premises allotted to a physically challenged person to 20 years contrary to 12-year period stipulated in the law.