Praful Patel’s seven-year tenure in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, before he was moved to the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, was far from uneventful. During his term, the two state-owned airlines underwent an ill-fated and ill-planned merger; plans were drawn up for a giant expansion of the merged airline that strained belief; and privately-run carriers complained that the benefits demanded by Air India were cramping their own expansion, and the state-guaranteed tariff cuts that Air India could provide were forcing them into unprofitability. It has now been reported that Air India has admitted to the Central Information Commission that it deployed a larger aircraft than the one originally scheduled to fly from Bangalore to Male in the Maldives. It had been reported earlier that this substitution had been made so that Mr Patel’s daughter, son-in-law, and their relatives could fly business-class to Male and back in April 2010.
The airline’s statement came in response to a request filed under the Right to Information Act by the indefatigable activist Subhash Agrawal. Air India, while admitting that, as Agrawal had alleged, the aircraft was changed from an Airbus A319 to the larger A320 — which has a business-class section — insisted that the reason for the change was “commercial requirements depending on booked load/demand and also due to operational/engineering requirements”. The airline, citing privacy concerns, has not revealed whether or not Mr Patel’s family was in fact travelling on the two flights which apparently received special treatment. The matter should not be allowed to rest there. The government itself should conduct an inquiry. Were these flights in fact changed on special instructions? Were the passengers who benefited Mr Patel’s family? How many aircraft have been altered in the past if there is a demand for business-class tickets? The answers to those questions should determine whether or not there was misuse of office. Such specific allegations cannot be allowed to go uninvestigated; and if proof is found that rules were bent, Mr Patel should be asked to leave the Union Cabinet.
It is not the first time that allegations have surrounded the use of Air India’s services by Mr Patel’s family. The airline was accused of diverting another aircraft for the use of a team playing in the Indian Premier League – associated with another of Mr Patel’s daughters. Then, too, the airline claimed, without substantiation, that this was standard procedure. Allegations of this sort, unanswered, allow an impression to build up of a government unconcerned about misuse of office. They have also empowered those who point to unwise decisions taken during Mr Patel’s tenure, such as the purchase of aircraft for Air India, and insist that they, too, were misuse of office — in spite of the fact that no formal charges exist and there appears to be little basis for any investigation. Yes, state-owned enterprises like Air India — and the many other public sector units that Mr Patel now oversees – are ripe for exploitation by their political masters. That is a continuing reason for reducing the size of the public sector, not an excuse for misusing it. If proof of misuse of office can be found, then it should be found, and those who have taken advantage of their position must be asked to resign.