New Delhi, Dec 18 (Reporter) The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on a plea filed by the Jharkhand government, challenging the quashing of an FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, and others in the 2022 Deoghar Airport case. The case sparked debates on the applicability of the Aircraft Act and the role of investigative agencies in such matters. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan, questioned the validity of the CID’s investigation in the matter and emphasised that offences under the Aircraft Act fall within a specific legal framework. The Court scrutinised the Jharkhand government for involving the CID in investigating allegations that the MPs pressured Air Traffic Control (ATC) officials to clear the takeoff of their chartered flight from Deoghar Airport, allegedly in violation of safety protocols. Justice Oka remarked, “How can the CID probe an offence under the Aircraft Act? There is a specific mechanism outlined in the law for such cases.” The court also directed the state government to provide precedents supporting its argument that an investigation could proceed without prior approval under the Aircraft Act. Advocate Jayant Mohan represented Jharkhand, while senior advocate Maninder Singh defended the BJP leaders. The controversy dates back to an FIR filed in August 2023 at the Kunda police station in Deoghar district, accusing nine individuals, including Dubey and Tiwari, of violating aviation security protocols on August 31, 2022. The FIR invoked provisions of the IPC and the Aircraft Act, alleging that the respondents forced ATC personnel to approve their flight’s takeoff beyond the scheduled time. Dubey’s counsel argued in the High Court that the allegations were politically motivated and lacked merit. He further clarified that the flight departed at 6:17 PM, adhering to aviation norms, which permit takeoffs up to 30 minutes after sunset. On that date, sunset occurred at approximately 6:03 PM. The High Court quashed the FIR, citing non-compliance with the Aircraft (Amendment) Act, which mandates prior sanction for investigations under its provisions. However, the state government appealed the ruling, leading to the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench indicated it might modify the High Court’s order, suggesting that evidence collected during the investigation could be forwarded to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for further action. The DGCA could then determine whether a complaint under the Aircraft Act should be filed. The court will now look into the clarification of whether the investigation into the alleged security breach can proceed under the current legal framework and could set a precedent for similar cases involving aviation safety and jurisdictional authority...////...