AI-171 Crash: Pilot's Family Invokes Natural Justice in Supreme Court Plea for Independent Probe

New Delhi – The aftermath of the tragic Air India flight AI-171 crash has transitioned from the crash site to the courtroom, with a powerful writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India that challenges the very foundation of the government's investigation. The petition, jointly filed by Pushkaraj Sabharwal, the 91-year-old father of the deceased pilot-in-command Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, and the Federation of Indian Pilots, seeks to dismantle the ongoing probe and replace it with a judicially monitored inquiry, arguing that the current process is a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.

The plea, lodged on October 10, presents a formidable legal challenge to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), contending their investigation is "defective, biased, and technically unsound." At its core, the petition argues that the state's investigative machinery cannot be permitted to investigate itself, invoking the seminal legal doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua —that no person should be a judge in their own cause.

The Core Legal Challenge: A Violation of Natural Justice

The petitioners have zeroed in on the composition of the five-member investigation team, which they argue is structurally compromised. The plea highlights that the team is dominated by officials from the DGCA and other state aviation authorities, the very bodies whose regulatory oversight, procedures, and potential lapses are under direct scrutiny following the crash that killed 260 people on June 12.

"It is respectfully submitted that the five-member investigation team appointed by the Respondents to investigate the crash of the Aircraft is manifestly illegal and void, as it violates the fundamental principle of natural justice," the petition states. By placing the investigation under the control of the DG, AAIB, and populating the team with officials from implicated regulatory bodies, the petitioners contend that an irreconcilable conflict of interest has been created.

This alleged conflict, the plea continues, is further compounded by the involvement of representatives from aircraft manufacturer Boeing and engine maker General Electric. Their presence, according to the petition, "undermines the impartiality, credibility, and reliability of the Report," suggesting a predisposition to overlook potential design, software, or mechanical failures in favour of a simpler, yet more damaging, narrative of human error.

Invoking Article 21: The Right to Life and Dignity

Beyond the procedural arguments, the petitioners have anchored their plea in the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. They argue that a flawed and prejudiced inquiry poses a direct threat to public safety, thereby infringing upon the Right to Life under Article 21.

“An incomplete and prejudiced inquiry, without identification of the exact cause of the accident, endangers the lives of future passengers and undermines aviation safety at large, causing a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the plea asserts. This framing elevates the issue from a private grievance to a matter of significant public interest, suggesting that the failure to identify the true root cause—be it technical, procedural, or systemic—leaves the door open for future catastrophic failures.

Furthermore, the petition contends that the preliminary report's "disproportionate focus" on the deceased pilots, who can no longer defend themselves, violates their posthumous right to dignity, also enshrined within the expansive interpretation of Article 21. Captain Sabharwal's father highlighted his son's "unblemished career spanning over 30 years, with 15,638 hours of incident-free flying," to counter the narrative of pilot error that emerged from the initial probe.

Challenging the Preliminary Findings

The petition directly assails the AAIB's preliminary report, issued on July 12, which suggested that the crash was caused by the pilots inadvertently cutting the fuel supply to the engines. The report cited cockpit voice recordings where one pilot allegedly asked the other, "Why did you cut off?" to which the other replied, "I didn't."

The petitioners argue that this conclusion is a "factual misdirection through selective disclosure" that conveniently ignores more plausible technical explanations. The plea suggests that the near-simultaneous shutdown of both engines points more towards an "automatic or corrupted digital command, not human intervention." This argument seeks to shift the investigative focus from the flight deck to the aircraft's complex systems, which they claim the current, conflicted team is ill-equipped or unwilling to properly scrutinize.

The plea further alleges a serious breach of confidentiality, claiming that sensitive cockpit voice recordings were leaked to international media before the official findings were released, fuelling a "malicious media campaign" against the deceased crew.

The Relief Sought: A Judicially Monitored Committee

Citing these profound legal and procedural flaws, the petitioners have requested comprehensive relief from the Supreme Court under its Article 32 jurisdiction. The central demand is for the constitution of an independent "Judicially Monitored Committee or Court of Inquiry," to be headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and composed of independent aviation and technical experts.

This proposed committee would be tasked with conducting a "fair, transparent, and technically robust investigation." Crucially, the petitioners seek a directive that all prior investigations, including the contentious preliminary report, be treated as closed and all relevant materials, data, and records be transferred to the new, impartial body.

“Only a judicially monitored, expert-driven investigation, independent of the regulatory authorities, can ensure a thorough, transparent, and credible determination of the true causes of this tragedy," the petition concludes.

The Supreme Court had previously, while hearing a separate plea from an aviation safety NGO, described the "pilot error" narrative as "unfortunate." With notices already issued to the Centre and the DGCA in that matter, this new, detailed petition from the pilot's family and a major pilots' union is set to intensify judicial scrutiny over the handling of one of India's worst aviation disasters. The case, which is expected to be heard after the Deepavali vacation, could set a vital precedent on the standards of impartiality required in accident investigations and the judiciary's role in safeguarding them.