The case of the corruption crusader being denied entry into the airplane
There is lot to enquire in this matter. Both, procedural-ly and philosophically.
I will first begin with the philosophical enquiry- which is -- How does a person prevent the abuse of Human Rights violation-claim, the Human Rights Violation being alleged to actually demand special privileges.
To clarify how I have reached to this query in my mind, I would want to give some explanation.
The airlines often times delay up slightly to give time to their late-arrivals to catch on the flight because otherwise those people would be losing great money. In modern times of airticketing, the tickets are being "auctioned" which means the traveller is buying the ticket (which is actually only a right to travel in the airplane) at his own risk to be making use of his rights. Advantage to the buyer is that if he does it at an early date, he gets the ticket cheaper; but should he fail to report up, a condition of early reporting makes up for the risk factor (or the involved risk) for the buyer, the airlines reserves right to sell it away to another buyer at a premium price. That is how the risk is levelled out on both the sides, between the buyer of the Rights (in the form of air ticket being purchased by the traveler) and the Seller of the Rights (the airline company).
Ofcourse the Seller ensures his profits through lots of other involved angles in this entire trade. for example, high-price tickets to the late buyers; zero-interest refund payments On cancellation, or even penalties, for the early Buyers; and as discussed, the Right reserved by the Seller (air line company, in this case) to re-sell away those tickets who have failed to meet up the risk of timely check-in.
If we focus only the last of the profit-making scope of the Seller, which is , right to re-auction those tickets where the previous buyer has failed to meet his condition of early check-in, -- In plain sight, this condition is not difficult to meet for the buyer of the Right. So the query comes up, '' then what is so risky in NOT DOING an early check-in which can make the traveller to lose something".
To this above query, the answer, in my view, is that "the airline companies have done insufficient to inform the traveller of his risks about NOT DOING the early check-in" with a good purpose of duping the traveller out of his money. NOT INFORMING the buyer of his duty to report check-in at right time-- increases the scope of the Seller to increase his profits.
Now I make my philosophical, or the Ethical Question, once again: People are humans, who can get delayed in vast city traffic they meet on the way. there are lots of human reasons for why a person can get delayed . So , at what point should this game between the Buyer and the seller by deemed to have crossed the rights which come to life due to human reasons? (= Human rights)
In one other view, it is possible that some sellers of tickets (the airline companies) may be providing special grants or availing more delays to those passengers, the travellers, whom they deem as the VVIPs.
In this combination of the two events, a new question will rise up asking for the justification for why Condition A has another justice from Condition B, the only clear and apparent difference between the two Condition being that the traveller is VVIP in Condition B while not so in the Condition A.
The Airline will perhaps have to keep a clear Public Service Charter on display for everyone's knowledge and also have clear procedures laid out for the management of the claims of the aggrieved traveller once the situation of 'failure to meet-up with the involved risk" case builts up. That will mean, a clear guideline on How to do check-in, upto what maximum time limit the check-in will be admissible as normal , non-delayed check-in; What grants, if any, for the delayed check-ins; Refund of money for the delayed-up-therefore-rejected travellers; And an issuing of a written documentary record for cause of rejection with good details.
In the case of predicament met by Mr Arvind Kejriwal, there is another Query raised: How do we know it is not a case of a malafide intentions ?
In India, it is normal for people to perceive such crusaders-against-corruption as the anti-systemic. Whereas the Corrupt have taken shelter behind the claim that those who are not with Crusades such as IndiaAgainstCorruption, should not be seen as the corrupt people, the corrupt have themselves seen such Crusaders as Anti-systemic and they act secretly to harm such crusaders.
Thus, if we ask the Airlines owners if they are with the IAC they might reject the idea to support the crusades. Further, if we take their rejection into a negative by enquiring that if their rejection of the support to IAC should mean that they (the airline company owners) are corrupt, they will accuse back saying that rejection should not be amounted to mean like that.
But how would we enquire a truely corrupt man if he supports or rejects the IAC?? Can any journalist ever do that? How else will the action of a corrupt man be put for public interrogation?
The problem of most of the crusaders will be that they all will be subjected to many numbers of secret malafide action by lots of people who are otherwise corrupt. In public offices, if an employee decides to act clean, he is ex-communicated. he is not given 'good' assignments. By 'good' it actually means those lucrative jobs which bring good under-table income.
So the corrupt keep secretly attacking the non-corrupts and put the honesty of non-corrupts on test , if a non-corrupt ever attempts to do any smart act to catch them up. the public opinion of what is corrupt and what is non-corrupt leaves no room of smart acts or secret acts by a Non-corrupt to ward off his corrupt rival.
Public administration system has no provisions to help the non-corrupt by demanding from everyone (both , corrupt and the non-corrupt) to create logs: timely issues of public information, creating a Charter of services, ...etc..
( It was possible to put the philosophical question in a apparently not so twisted way. Like, by questioning in more simple words: How to differ between privileges arising due human rights against those which are of corrupt intentions (like the VVIP previleges, special status to big and mighty). But , as life would have it, no body faces the dilemma as straight as this question. Since, nobody wants to be seen acting corrupt in full view of the public, and neither to to be acting inhuman , the situation of claim arises when a VVIP is given special previliges under pretext of honouring Human Reasons, and Common Man is denied those under reasons that business is impacted by contesting Human Reasons with Business Needs. )