Jitender Bhargava writes: Air India’s Internal Committee report in peegate incident has multiple flaws

Air India would do well to introspect whether the report meets the high ethical standards of Tatas.

Last week, the Internal Committee constituted by Air India to examine the incident of a traveller peeing on a co-passenger declared the alleged perpetrator, Shankar Mishra, as ‘unruly’. In the normal course, such reports from Internal Committees signal the end of the issue. However, in this case, the committee has erred and glossed over facts in such a way that Air India must review it to ensure that bloomers aren’t repeated.

The committee itself was set up following the regulations of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation.  It comprised a retired district and sessions judge, N.K. Goel, as chairman; it had a representative from a different scheduled airline as member — Indigo’s Director of System Training, Pratik A Sen; and a representative from a passengers’ association — Sethu Vaidyanathan, VP - Northern Region, Air Passengers Association of India.

Phantom Seat No 9B

But this committee did not live up to expectations as a cursory perusal of its report shows. Not only did it not do its homework, but it also allowed a perception to be created that the report was tailor-made to support a certain narrative. The biggest and clinching evidence for this argument is its statement about Seat No 9B which casts a huge shadow on the credibility of the report.

“Whether seat No 9B was vacant or some passenger was sitting on it has not been made clear. Ms Ila Banerjee, aged 85 years, seated on seat 9C was sleeping. Seat No 9B must be a seat between seat No 9A and seat No 9C. Therefore, it was possible for the respondent-passenger being in inebriated condition to reach seat No 9A and to urinate on the passenger seated on seat 9A under a belief that he was using a toilet,” says the report.

READ | From Jitender Bhargava: Trend of pee-gate events on Air India flight creates doubt on complainant’s intent, integrity

Clearly, the committee members lacked basic knowledge. There was no seat No 9B in the flight under question. The committee could have easily sought a clarification from Air India rather than make conjectures about this seat.

It is surprising that the airline representative (Sen of Indigo) failed to check this status before signing the report. Similarly, Vaidyanathan of the Passengers’ association had the responsibility of independently looking at the versions of both the complainant and the accused. If he faltered in this, which looks apparent from the content of the report, his contribution too becomes questionable.

Misplaced Inferences

One is also tempted to ask how the committee reached certain conclusions. For instance, the lawyer of the accused passenger told the panel that the complainant could have urinated on herself because not even a single drop fell on the co-passenger seated on 9C. While the media mocked this as far-fetched and a figment of the lawyer’s imagination, the committee rightly took note of this. However, it went astray to arrive at a misplaced conclusion.

The report said: “it may be correct that events of urinary/incontinence become more frequent as one ages, and even more so in female dancers. Passenger seated on seat No 9C, Ms Ila Banerjee, is 85 years old. No such allegation has been made against her. Simply because the complainant is a 72 years old lady and she is a Bharatnatyam dancer is not sufficient to draw a presumption that it was she who had urinated herself and put the blame on the respondent-passenger”.

The committee seems to have determined that just because no such allegation was made against an 85 year old passenger, therefore it is illogical to presume that someone younger — the complainant is 72 years old — could be suffering from incontinence.

The summary dismissal of this theory, however far-fetched it might seem to be, reinforces the feeling that the committee has seemingly sided with the complainant. Another reasons for this is the weightage given to the accused’s co-passenger, Sugata Bhattacharjee, who was seated on 8A.

The report states: “It may be possible that he (S Bhattacharjee) was more interested in getting his seat upgraded to First Class and after the incident in question he became more agitated and found a ground for upgradation of his seat on the ground that he would not sit with the passenger in seat 8C Mr Shankar Mishra. It may also be possible that he had exhorted/instigated the complainant to contact some newspaper at IGI Airport after landing of the aircraft. However, this is not a ground in itself to discard his testimony.”

Here is the key question: Was Bhattacharjee an actual eyewitness? Since the incident allegedly took place in a row behind him, can he be a witness when passengers seated beside and behind the complainant in seats 10A, 10C and 10D did not see anything unusual?

Offer to Compensate

The committee concluded that the accused was an ‘unruly passenger’ also because he had voluntarily agreed to compensate the complainant and stated as much in his WhatsApp message that “I promise this will never ever happen to anyone from me”, and so on. The Committee ignored the fact that these messages were exchanged when cordiality existed between the two; compensation payment had been accepted and accused had got the soiled clothes dry cleaned and delivered to the complainant.

Flaws Galore

At the end of the day, the moot question is whether the alleged perpetrator Shankar Mishra urinated over the lady passenger? That remains to be proved. The report’s conclusions, on the other hand, are based on presumptions and misplaced inferences.

Air India would do well to introspect whether the report meets the high ethical standards of Tatas as justice should not only be done but also seen to have been done.

Jitender Bhargava is former Executive Director, Air India, and author of The Descent of Air India. Views are personal and do not represent that stand of this publication.