Supreme Court Orally Exonerates Pilot in Air India Crash, Questions Probe's Impartiality

NEW DELHI – In a significant hearing that intertwines judicial oversight with the technicalities of aviation accident investigation, a Supreme Court bench has emphatically stated that "nobody in the country believes it was the pilot's fault" in the tragic Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner crash in Ahmedabad. The Court's strong oral observations have shifted the narrative surrounding the disaster, placing the impartiality and methodology of the official probe under intense legal scrutiny.

A division bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Friday issued notice to the Union of India, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). The notice was in response to a writ petition filed by Pushkaraj Sabharwal, the elderly father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was the Pilot-in-Command of the ill-fated flight. The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) is a co-petitioner, seeking a judicially monitored investigation into the June 12 crash that claimed 260 lives.

The Court's remarks serve as a powerful, albeit informal, rebuke to the speculation that has attributed blame to the flight crew, a narrative amplified by media reports. "It’s extremely unfortunate that this crash took place, but you should not carry this burden on yourself that your son is being blamed," Justice Surya Kant told the 88-year-old petitioner. "Nobody can blame him for anything. No one in India believes it is the pilot's fault.”

---

Challenging the Investigation's Framework and Independence

The core legal challenge, articulated by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan on behalf of the petitioners, strikes at the very foundation of the ongoing investigation. The petition argues that the current probe, conducted by the AAIB, is "defective" and raises serious questions of conflict of interest and procedural lapses.

Mr. Sankaranarayanan contended that the government has failed to institute a formal investigation under Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017, which is mandated for major accidents. Instead, the authorities have proceeded with a preliminary investigation under Rule 9. "That has not been done," he submitted, arguing that this procedural choice has resulted in an incomplete and potentially biased inquiry.

The petition further alleges a significant conflict of interest in the probe's composition. It points out that the investigation team includes officers from the DGCA, the very regulatory body whose oversight and procedures are under scrutiny. “The very entities responsible for regulating and overseeing civil aviation are effectively investigating themselves,” the plea states. This arrangement, compounded by the involvement of representatives from aircraft manufacturer Boeing and engine maker General Electric, "undermines the impartiality, credibility, and reliability of the report," according to the petitioners.

The Court appeared receptive to these concerns, issuing notice to the government and aviation bodies and scheduling the matter to be heard alongside a related petition from the NGO Safety Matters Foundation on November 10.

---

The Preliminary Report: A Source of Contention

The catalyst for much of the controversy is the AAIB's preliminary report, released in July. The report identified the immediate cause of the crash: the fuel control switches for both engines "transitioned" to the "CUTOFF" position three seconds after takeoff, starving the engines of fuel.

The report also included a transcript from the cockpit voice recorder where one pilot asks the other, "Why did he cut off?", to which the colleague responds that he had not. While the report did not explicitly assign blame, this snippet sparked widespread speculation about pilot error or even intentional action.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi sought to assuage the petitioner's concerns, stating that the bench had reviewed the report and found no direct insinuation against the pilot. "It just records a cockpit recorder... there’s no question of the report apportioning blame," he remarked.

Justice Bagchi also underscored a fundamental principle of air accident investigations, noting that their objective is preventive, not punitive. "In fact, the Rules and the AIB investigation are not to apportion blame. It’s to propose better performance and the avoidance of such accidents in the future. Where is the cause of action in this writ petition?” he queried, highlighting the legal distinction between a fact-finding safety probe and a fault-finding judicial process.

However, the petitioners maintain that by focusing on the cockpit exchange while allegedly ignoring crucial technical evidence, the probe has disproportionately and unfairly implicated the deceased pilots. The plea highlights evidence of a potential electrical or software malfunction, noting that the aircraft’s Ram Air Turbine (RAT)—an emergency generator—activated before any control inputs from the pilots, suggesting a systemic failure preceded the engine shutdown.

---

Judicial Rebuke of Media Reporting and Leaks

The bench was particularly critical of a Wall Street Journal report that, citing unnamed Indian government sources, implied pilot negligence. When Mr. Sankaranarayanan raised this as a source of the family's distress, the judges dismissed its relevance in an Indian court.

“We are not bothered about what a foreign press [reports]... Then your suit should have been against The Wall Street Journal in an American court,” the bench stated, describing the article as "nasty reporting only because they want to blame India."

This stance is consistent with the Court's previous observations in a September hearing on a related petition, where it condemned the "selective" release of the AAIB's report and described media reports attributing pilot error as "irresponsible." The Court’s repeated admonishments signal a growing judicial impatience with trial-by-media, especially when it is fueled by leaks from an ongoing, confidential investigation.

---

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

The Supreme Court's intervention has profound implications for aviation law and administrative law in India. By admitting the plea for a judicially monitored probe, the Court has signaled its willingness to look behind the curtain of a highly technical, state-led investigation, particularly when credible allegations of procedural impropriety and conflict of interest arise.

For the legal community, this case presents several key takeaways:

1. Judicial Review of Technical Probes: The case will test the extent to which courts can and should intervene in specialized accident investigations without overstepping their expertise. The petitioners are not asking the Court to determine the cause of the crash, but to ensure the integrity of the process established to find that cause.

2. Statutory Interpretation: The distinction between a preliminary investigation under Rule 9 and a formal inquiry under Rule 12 of the Aircraft Rules, 2017, will likely be a central point of legal argument. The outcome could clarify the government's mandatory duties following a major aviation disaster.

3. Conflict of Interest Doctrine: The challenge to the DGCA's involvement in its own investigation could set a significant precedent for the composition of future inquiry committees across various regulated sectors.

As the government and aviation authorities prepare their responses, the focus remains on the integrity of the fact-finding process. The Supreme Court's powerful oral defense of Captain Sabharwal has already provided a measure of solace to his family, but the legal battle to ensure a transparent, impartial, and comprehensive investigation into one of India's worst aviation disasters is just beginning.