Dilip Cherian | Noida Airport’s Avoidable CEO Mess: Samra To Stay or Go?

The Noida International Airport story has taken yet another sharp turn, and not the kind you want when you’re preparing for take-off.

Barely days after the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) refused security clearance to CEO Christoph Schnellmann, the airport moved swiftly to plug the gap. Nitu Samra, until now the chief financial officer, has been appointed interim CEO effective immediately, while the board begins the search for a permanent replacement.

This wasn’t exactly a bolt from the blue. The writing had been on the wall for a while. India’s aviation security rules are unambiguous: the head of a greenfield airport must be an Indian national. Schnellmann, a Swiss citizen who had led the project since 2020, simply didn’t meet that requirement, and attempts to bend the rule went nowhere.

The result? A last-minute leadership reshuffle at a critical stage. Schnellmann has now been moved upstairs to the board as executive vice-chairman, a face-saving transition that preserves continuity while ticking the regulatory box.

Ms Samra’s appointment, meanwhile, is less a bold new direction and more a practical fix. She’s been part of the project since 2021, handling finances, governance, and the nuts and bolts of getting the airport ready. She’s an insider stepping in to steady the course.

But the larger takeaway is harder to ignore. For a marquee infrastructure project that’s already seen delays, this episode underscores a familiar Indian story — regulatory compliance catching up late in the day. The rule wasn’t new. The consequences, however, have arrived right when the airport is supposed to be gearing up for launch.

It is hoped this course correction clears the final hurdles. The airport needs a departure schedule and not another headline.

A steady hand at CCI: why continuity matters right now

At a time when India’s markets are evolving at breakneck speed, stability in regulation matters. The appointment of Rakesh Bhanot as acting director general of the investigation wing at the Competition Commission of India (CCI) delivers exactly that. Yes, it’s an interim arrangement. But in regulatory terms, “acting” doesn’t mean inconsequential.

The DG’s office is the CCI’s investigative core, where cases are built, dominance is tested, and market behaviour is scrutinised. With ongoing probes spanning aviation, e-commerce, and Big Tech players like Google, continuity is critical. Any gap at the top risks slowing down momentum in matters that are already complex and time-sensitive.

That’s where Mr Bhanot’s appointment works. As an insider familiar with the system, he brings immediate operational continuity, and in a pipeline of long-running investigations, that matters more than titles.

It also reflects a measured approach. Rather than rushing a full-time appointment, the system is keeping the machinery running while the selection process plays out.

India’s competition landscape is only getting more intricate, especially with stronger enforcement powers and rising scrutiny of digital markets. In that context, a steady hand, even in an acting capacity, is not a compromise. It’s a considered choice. Sometimes, holding the line is the real job.

A diplomatic win, with one loose end

India has, over the years, built a credible reputation for stepping in to protect its citizens abroad, whether stranded workers, students in conflict zones, or professionals caught in legal trouble. That reputation rests on a series of real, tangible successes.

Which is why this case stands out.

When India secured the release of seven former naval officers from Qatar earlier this year, it was rightly seen as a diplomatic win. The visuals, the sense of relief, and the official messaging all pointed to a job well done. But the picture wasn’t complete. Purnendu Tiwari is still in prison.

The official explanation is straightforward. Mr Tiwari, according to the government, is facing a separate legal case involving alleged financial irregularities, which sets him apart from the others who were granted clemency. That distinction may hold legally, but it is harder to reconcile in public perception, where the case has always been seen as a collective one.

After all, these were not eight unrelated individuals picked up independently. Their arrest, trial, sentencing, and eventual diplomatic intervention unfolded as part of a single, high-profile episode. The response was coordinated; the outcome, however, has diverged.

To be clear, no one expects legal processes in another country to be bypassed, nor can complex cases be resolved overnight. Governments operate within constraints. But consistency in outcomes still matters.

If the system could move effectively to bring seven men home, the continued detention of the eighth raises legitimate questions about follow-through. At what point does a “separate case” begin to look like a convenient distinction?

Mr Tiwari’s family has been speaking out, pointing to his prolonged incarceration, concerns about his health, and a growing sense of uncertainty. They have now appealed for intervention at the highest level, including from Narendra Modi.

Because unfinished cases have a way of casting a shadow over completed ones. Until this one is resolved, the story remains incomplete.