Bhartiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024 Replaces 90-Year-Old Aircraft Act

The Parliament on December 5, 2024, passed ‘The Bhartiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024,‘ a bill designed to replace the 90-year-old Aircraft Act of 1934. 

The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 31 and was passed by the Lower House on August 9. The Indian civil aviation industry has primarily been regulated by the Aircraft Act, 1934, which governs civil aviation activities and airport licensing, along with The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) Act, 2008, which establishes an independent authority to regulate tariffs for aeronautical services.

The Bill retains most of the provisions of the Act and aims to address the redundancies that led to 21 amendments to the 1934 Act over the past 90 years. The most recent amendment in the Act of 1934 was made in 2020 that granted statutory recognition to Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), and Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau (AAIB), but it did not establish an independent regulator like those in the telecom, electricity, and insurance sectors. 

The Indian aviation industry is the third-largest in the world after the US and China, with the rapidly growing air traffic that experienced a 13.5% YoY growth in domestic traffic and a 22.3% growth in international traffic in FY23. The Bill is passed in line with the goal of promoting self-reliance and improving infrastructure, with a commitment to having 350-400 operational airports by 2047 and approximately 1,100 Indian carriers by 2027.

The Bill aims to improve safety, regulatory supervision, and consumer protection, ensuring alignment with international standards. It also fosters self-reliance in aircraft manufacturing, encourages investment, and creates strong governance frameworks for civil aviation authorities.

Key highlights of Bhartiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024

• Single window clearance: The Bill’s most notable modification is the transfer of the Radio Telephone Operator’s Restricted certificate and license testing procedure from the Department of Telecom (DoT) to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). This process was previously carried out for aviation personnel, such as pilots, flight dispatchers, and aircraft maintenance engineers. Because aviation workers may now obtain all of their certificates from a single authority, this will guarantee a single-window clearance procedure. Examinees, such as trainee pilots, have claimed that the RTR exam administered by the DoT was rigged and that candidates were forced to pay bribes totaling several lakhs.
• Regulation of design of aircraft: The Bill also adds power to regulate the design of aircraft, as well as the places where they are being designed, in addition to retaining provisions for their manufacture, repair and maintenance.
• Power to make rules: Clause 10 (2)(m) of the Bill empowers the Central government to regulate the certification and licensing of personnel engaged in the operation of radio telephone or telegraph for the conduct of operations and maintenance of aircraft. 
• Offences and penalties: Chapter VII of the Bill provides discretion to the Central government to specify civil and criminal penalties for violation of Rules. Civil penalty up to one crore rupees and criminal penalty imposing imprisonment up to two years and a fine of one crore rupees, or both. 
• Appointment of arbitrator: Clause 22(1)(b) provides that the Central government may appoint an arbitrator to resolve compensation disputes.
• Delegated Legislation and Adjudication: Sub-clause (2) of clause 32 of the Bill empowers the Central Government to make rules to provide for the manner in which the designated officers may adjudicate penalty.
• The Bill introduces a provision for a second appeal against decisions related to the imposition of penalties for violating Rules under it.

The major concerns that surround Vidheyak 2024 are not recognising DGCA as an independent regulator. Also, the unilateral appointment of arbitrators was also considered by the Supreme Court to be violative of the right to equality.