38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Executive

Ban Imposed On Comedian Kunal Kamra Not Illegal, Clarifies DGCA

By LawStreet News Network      31 January, 2020 01:01 PM      0 Comments
Ban Imposed On Comedian Kunal Kamra Not Illegal, Clarifies DGCA

After questions were raised on the ban imposed on comedian Kunal Kamra, by four major domestic airlines, including IndiGo, Air India, Go Air and Spice jet, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in a statement on Wednesday (January 29, 2020) said, "This is to reiterate that the action taken by the airlines is in complete consonance with Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) Section-3, Series M Part VI on handling of unruly passengers."  It further added, "Now the matter is to be referred to the internal committee as prescribed in para 6.1 of the said CAR (Civil Aviation Requirements). Further, as per para 6.4 of the CAR, the internal committee is to give the final decision in 30 days by giving the reasons in writing, which shall be binding on the airline concerned. Punishment for different type of unruly behaviour is also prescribed in the same CAR and the internal committee has to adhere to the same."

After Kunal Kamra, a Mumbai based comedian tweeted a video, where he is seen confronting Republic TV journalist Arnab Goswami, asking him whether he is a coward or a journalist, throughout the 1.51 minute video Arnab doesnt respond to any of Karmas questions. The airlines was quick to take an action and barred Kamra from flying with them for a period of 6 months. The Minister of State for Civil Aviation Hardeep Singh Puri, also tweeted about the incident and advised other airlines to take same measures. Following which Air India, Spice jet and Go Air have banned Karma till further notice. 



Arun Kumar, the Director General of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) speaking to a HuffPost journalist  said that a 6 months' ban on Kunal Kamra by IndiGo and subsequent bans announced by other airlines, is a violation of the Civil Aviation Requirement Rules, under CAR Section 3, Series M, PartVI on Handling of Unruly Passengers. Further Kumar explained that in case of any unruly behaviour, like verbal spats or confrontations, the airlines should first impose a temporary ban of 30 days on the passenger and order an internal enquiry into the incident headed by a retired judge.

According to the CAR rules unruly behaviour that is verbally unruly, and in those cases operator can debar a passenger for upto 3 months, but in Kamras case the airlines have announced a 6 months' ban even though there was only verbal confrontation as seen in the video. Further the rules require a complaint to be made to the pilot-in-command, which would be probed by an internal committee ordered by the airlines and headed by a district and sessions judge and should have representatives from different scheduled airlines, passengers association/consumer, association/retired officer of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum as members. The internal committee will decide the matter within 30 days and give a specified period of ban on the unruly passenger. 

While the committee conducts its enquiry and the airline may ban the said passenger. The airlines are further required to share the non-fly list with DGCA and other operators and same shall be published on DGCA website but other airlines are not bound by the no-fly list. In Kamras case no inquiry was held before IndiGo announced a 6 months' ban. DGCA has in its statement also stated director Arun Kumars statements to HuffPost India were misrepresented and the ban imposed on Kamra adhere to the rules laid down in CAR. 

Author: Antra Shourya 



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email