MC Exclusive | Air India seating plan uncovers a potential twist in pee-gate

Moneycontrol has obtained the seating plan and the seat numbers of the persons concerned in the business class section of Air India’s New York-New Delhi flight AI 102, aboard which an inebriated man allegedly urinated on a 72-year-old lady on November 26, 2022

The complainant in the Air India urinating incident had a window seat, which may back the claim of the accused that he couldn’t have committed the act because access would have been blocked, people familiar with the matter said.

Moneycontrol has obtained the seating plan and the seat numbers of the persons concerned in the business class section of Air India’s New York-New Delhi flight AI 102, aboard which an inebriated man allegedly urinated on a 72-year-old lady on November 26, 2022.

The complainant had a window seat, while Shankar Mishra, the accused, occupied the aisle seat in the row just ahead of her, the people said.

The complainant had stated that an intoxicated Mishra walked up to her seat and relieved himself on her. Mishra’s lawyer, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, rebutted the charge and told a Delhi court that Mishra couldn’t have committed the act as he couldn't have accessed the complainant’s seat. He went on to add that the lady may have soiled herself.

In an attempt to bolster his defence, Gupta also posited the (unsubstantiated) theory that being a kathak dancer, the lady was likely incontinent as 80 percent of kathak dancers apparently suffer from this.

Also read: Twist to Air India peeing incident, accused claims he did not urinate on woman

What does the seating plan reveal?

According to the business class seating plan of the Boeing B777-300ER aircraft, the septuagenarian was supposedly on 9A, a window seat. Mishra was apparently in 8C, the aisle seat right ahead of her. On window seat 8A, next to Mishra, was Sugata Bhattacharjee, a US-based audiologist. In 9C, the aisle seat next to the complainant, was another elderly lady.

Mishra argued that he couldn’t have urinated on the complainant who was on a window seat (9A) because the person on the aisle seat (9C) next to her would’ve blocked his access.

Air India pee-gate flight seating plan

According to aviation experts, business class seats are spacious and access to the window seat would depend on whether the aisle seat was fully reclined or upright. If aisle seat 9C was reclined, it would have been difficult to access 9A. There would have been no obstacle if 9C was upright, the experts said.

Business class seats are spacious. (Photo by Samantha Rosen from The Points Guy)

“This is an issue which is sub-judice and is being enquired into by different bodies, including the police. Hence, we would not like to make any comment on this,” an Air India spokesperson said in response to queries from Moneycontrol.

Background

Based on the lady’s complaint, an FIR was lodged against Mishra on January 4, charging him under IPC sections 294 (obscene act in a public place), 354 and 509 (outraging a woman’s modesty), and 510 (drunken misconduct in public), and under section 23 of the Aircraft Rules (assault or intimidation aboard an aircraft).

Following the FIR, Mishra went missing and was also fired from his job over this. Air India put him on its no-fly list. He was eventually arrested in Bengaluru on 6 January, and has been remanded to 14 days of judicial custody.

Also read: Wells Fargo sacks India VP Shankar Mishra for urinating on Air India co-passenger

Unanswered questions

Notwithstanding what the seating plan shows, given the course of events, some questions remain.

Were the complainant and the accused indeed seated on the seat numbers mentioned? Is it possible that the complainant swapped seats with the person next to her, or that the person next to her was not in her seat when the incident happened?

How credible is the account of Bhattacharjee, the person seated next to the accused and ahead of the complainant, which reportedly confirms the septuagenarian’s allegation?

The investigating officer in the case informed the court that seven witnesses have been interrogated and six more are to be examined, including four flight staff and two passengers. What do these show?