Gorakhpur tragedy continues: 42 children die in 48 hours at BRD medical college

Mumbai, Feb 9: Given the slow progress on the ongoing Rs 38,000-crore capacity expansion at the four largest metro airports, and also the surging traffic, the snaky queues will continue at least till 2023, warns a report.

The four largest airports -- New Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad -- handle more than half of the traffic and are operating at 130 per cent of their installed capacity. These airports are under a record Rs 38,000-crore capex but the capacity will not come up before end-2023, says a Crisil report.

“With the dip in traffic growth largely behind, we expect congestion at the top four airports of New Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, which handle more than half of the load, to continue till about FY23,” says the report.

Already these airports are operating at over 130 percent of installed capacity, and the ongoing healthy traffic growth this operating rate is expected to rise further in the next 12 months.

“Operationalising of capacities in the following two fiscals will bring down utilisation levels albeit still high at over 90 per cent by fiscal 2023 and that is despite an unprecedented Rs 38,000 crore capex being undertaken by the operators of these airports over five fiscals 2020-24,” says the report.

Despite this unprecedented capex that is debt-funded, ratings are likely to be stable given the strong cash flows expected due to healthy traffic growth, low project risks associated with the capex and improving regulatory environment, notes the report.

“Capacity at these four airports will increase a cumulative 65 per cent to 228 million annually (from 138 million now) by fiscal 2023. However, traffic is expected to grow strong at up to 10 per cent per annum over the same period. Since additional capacities will become operational in phases only by fiscal 2023, high passenger growth will add to congestion till then,” warn the report.

High utilisation will ride on pent-up demand (accumulated in 2019 as traffic was impacted with the grounding of Jet Airways) and one-off issues with new aircraft of certain airlines.

Further impetus will also come from improving connectivity to lower-tier cities and reducing fare difference between air and rail. Increasing footfalls at airports provide a leg-up to non-aero streams such as advertising, rentals, food and beverage and parking, which comprise around half of the revenue of airports already.

These are expected to grow strongly at over 10-12 per cent, also supported by higher monetisation avenue coming along with current capex. The other half of revenue (aero revenue) is an entitlement approved by the regulator, providing a pre-determined, fixed return over the asset base and a pass-through of costs.

Aero revenue is also expected to get a bump up during fiscals 2022-24, when a new tariff order for airports is likely. Overall aggregate cash flows are likely to double by fiscal 2024 and provide a healthy cushion against servicing of debt contracted for capex, the report concludes.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.

Mar 7: Two Malayalam news channels, Asianet News and Media One, which were banned by the information and broadcasting ministry for their coverage of the recent violence in Delhi on Friday evening, were allowed to resume telecasting on Saturday morning.

While Asianet News appeared to have begun operations around 7am on Saturday, Media One was screening content by 9.30am.

The ministry of information and broadcasting had imposed a 48-hour ban on Asianet News and Media One for their coverage of the Delhi violence for 48 hours from 7.30pm on Friday. Both Asianet News and Media One were barred under Rule 6(1 c) and Rule 6(1e) of the Cable Television Networks Act, 1994.

The ministry of information and broadcasting alleged Asianet News and Media One were "biased" and critical of the RSS and Delhi Police.

The ban on Asianet News and Media One triggered a torrent of criticism of the move. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor asked how "Malayalam channels inflame communal passions in Delhi?" and alleged some English news channels were continuing "their brazen distortions" with impunity.

In a statement issued on Friday after the ban, Media One termed the move "unfortunate and condemnable" and called it a "blatant attack against free and fair reporting". Media One called it "an order to stop free and fair journalism".