Supreme Court to Expedite Hearing on Air India Crash PIL Soon

Supreme Court to Expedite Hearing on Air India Crash PIL Soon

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court of India has agreed to expedite hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the  Air India Flight AI171 crash that killed 260 people. After an NGO alleged the official probe violated citizens’ fundamental rights, the court will soon list the matter for hearing to consider an independent, impartial investigation.

Background of the Air India Crash

• Flight Details: The Air India Flight AI 171 crash was a catastrophic aviation disaster that occurred on June 12, 2025, when a Boeing 787‑8 Dreamliner operating the Ahmedabad (India) to London Gatwick (UK) service crashed moments after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad. 
  • Flight AI 171 was carrying a total of 242 people on board, including 230 passengers and 12 crew members. The cockpit was helmed by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kundar, both experienced pilots with significant flying hours on the Dreamliner.
• Crash: The flight departed at approximately 13:38 IST, and within 30–40 seconds of liftoff, the aircraft experienced a sudden and total loss of engine thrust, leading to a rapid descent and impact into the BJ Medical College hostel complex in the Meghani Nagar residential area, roughly 1.7 km (1.05 miles) from the runway. This disaster was one of India’s worst air tragedies in decades.
• Casualties: The death toll was devastatingly high: official confirmed figures show 241 of the 242 onboard perished, with only one passenger surviving the crash. 
  • In addition to the onboard fatalities, at least 19 people on the ground were killed and several dozen more were injured by the impact.
• Investigation: The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of India, under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, launched an immediate and comprehensive investigation with support from international agencies including the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB‑UK). 
  • Investigators recovered the flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) from the wreckage within days, despite severe fire damage to the site. 
  • Initial data showed that both engine fuel control switches had inexplicably moved from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ positions just after takeoff, abruptly stopping fuel flow to both engines.
  • Data from the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs) uncovered crucial moments. Seconds after takeoff, one pilot was recorded asking, “Why did you cut off?”, to which the other pilot responded in denial.
  • Communication records with Ahmedabad Air Traffic Control (ATC) showed normal procedures up until the crash. After that, all communication ceased. The Ram Air Turbine (RAT) was deployed automatically, indicating a severe power loss, while the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) began startup. 

Details of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

• PIL Overview: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court of India after the Air India crash to challenge the official investigation’s transparency and adequacy. 
  • The PIL alleges that the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB)’s preliminary report and the overall inquiry violated citizens’ fundamental rights — including right to life (Article 21), right to equality (Article 14), and freedom of speech (Article 19) — by withholding critical data and failing to comply with international investigation standards under Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention.
  • The petition asserts that the AAIB’s probe team is compromised because three of its five members are serving officers of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), an entity whose regulatory role over Air India operations may present a conflict of interest.
• Parties Involved in the PIL: The leading petitioner is the Safety Matters Foundation, a non‑governmental organisation focused on improving aviation safety, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan before the Supreme Court. 
  • In parallel, other related petitions have been filed: one by Pushkaraj Sabharwal, father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal (the pilot of AI 171), backed by the Federation of Indian Pilots, calling for a judicial inquiry under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge; and another by a law student highlighting accountability gaps in India’s aviation oversight.
• Respondents Named: The respondents in the PIL include the Union of India (Central Government), the DGCA, and the AAIB — all of whom have been directed by the Supreme Court to file responses on the points raised, particularly about the investigation’s independence, completeness, and timeliness.

• Gaps in the Official Inquiry: The PIL criticises the AAIB’s preliminary investigation report (released roughly a month after the accident) for several perceived deficiencies. Key concerns include:
  • Selective disclosure of data: Only partial extracts from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and limited flight data have been made available, without full transcripts or timestamps necessary for thorough analysis.
  • Failure to address systemic issues: The report did not fully explore known technical anomalies — such as the fuel control switch locking mechanism vulnerabilities flagged by the U.S. FAA and electrical issues evidenced by Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployment.
  • Omission of critical findings: Survivor testimony describing electrical disturbances and flickering lights before the crash, and unexplained damage to an Enhanced Aircraft Flight Recorder (EAFR), were not adequately addressed in the initial report.
• Demands: The petitioners urge the Supreme Court to direct the establishment of a court‑monitored, expert‑led inquiry that adheres strictly to international aviation investigation standards, publishes complete black box data, and identifies systemic causes to prevent future accidents rather than prematurely assigning blame without comprehensive technical evidence.

Supreme Court Hearing

In September 2025 and early 2026, the Supreme Court — led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi — began hearing the matter to determine whether the official enquiry complies with legal and international norms and if it should be restructured under judicial oversight. 

• The Court has indicated its intention to expedite listing and hearing of the PIL to ensure conclusions are reached without undue delays or speculative leaks that could distort public understanding of the tragedy.
• The Bench has emphasised the need for investigations to be free, fair, impartial, and expeditious, cautioning that selective leaks of preliminary findings, especially those suggesting pilot error without comprehensive technical context, are “very unfortunate” and could mar objective inquiry. 
• The Court has also underscored the need to protect privacy and dignity of deceased crew members’ families while urging full and transparent disclosure of factual records once properly vetted.