Supreme Court Petitioned Over Air India Crash Probe, Alleging Bias and Constitutional Violations

New Delhi – A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court of India, seeking a court-monitored investigation into the tragic crash of Air India Flight AI171. The petition, brought by aviation safety NGO Safety Matters Foundation, raises significant legal questions about the integrity and transparency of the official probe, alleging conflicts of interest and violations of fundamental rights under the Constitution.

The crash, which occurred on June 12, 2025, claimed 260 lives and prompted an immediate investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). However, the petitioner contends that the subsequent inquiry has been marred by procedural and substantive flaws that undermine its credibility and contravene both domestic law and international aviation standards.

The Core Allegations: A Challenge to the Official Narrative

At the heart of the PIL, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, is a challenge to the AAIB's Preliminary Report issued on July 12, 2025. The report attributed the crash to the "fuel cutoff switches" being moved to the CUTOFF position, strongly implying pilot error as the primary cause.

The petitioner, Safety Matters Foundation, led by aviation expert Capt. Amit Singh FRAeS, argues that this conclusion is premature and based on an incomplete and selective presentation of evidence. The petition asserts that the AAIB has withheld critical information necessary for an objective analysis, stating, "...the report withholds crucial flight data such as the complete Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) output, the full Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcript with timestamps, and the Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data..."

This alleged suppression of data, the petitioner claims, effectively prevents independent experts and the public from scrutinizing the official narrative. The plea further contends that the preliminary report deliberately downplays documented system anomalies that occurred prior to the crash, including fuel switch defects, electrical faults, and the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), which suggests significant technical malfunctions were at play.

Constitutional Framework and Fundamental Rights

The legal foundation of the petition rests on the alleged infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The plea argues that a flawed and biased investigation into a mass-casualty event constitutes a profound violation of multiple constitutional articles:

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The petitioner submits that the right to life encompasses the right to safety, particularly in state-regulated sectors like aviation. A compromised investigation that fails to identify and rectify systemic safety failures leaves future passengers vulnerable, thereby continuing the threat to life and dignity.
• Article 14 (Right to Equality): The PIL argues that the manner of the investigation is arbitrary and unreasonable. By prematurely focusing on human error while allegedly ignoring evidence of technical and regulatory failures, the AAIB's approach fails the test of non-arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14.
• Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression): The petition invokes the judicially expanded meaning of this right, which includes the public's right to receive truthful and complete information, especially in matters of significant public concern. The selective disclosure of data is framed as a direct breach of this right, obstructing public discourse and accountability.

The petition states that a "selective and biased' inquiry in a disaster of this magnitude violates Article 21 of the Constitution by compromising citizens' right to life, safety and dignity, is arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, and suppresses truthful information in breach of Article 19(1)(a)."

Conflict of Interest and International Standards

A central legal challenge raised in the petition concerns an alleged institutional conflict of interest within the investigation team. The plea flags the significant presence of officers from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in the AAIB's probe. The petitioner argues this is improper because the DGCA itself is a party of interest, as its regulatory oversight and certification processes are implicitly under scrutiny following any major aviation incident.

The petition contends that allowing an agency to effectively investigate itself is a violation of the principles of natural justice. This arrangement, it is argued, directly contravenes the spirit of Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention, the foundational treaty of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Annex 13 mandates that the sole objective of an aircraft accident investigation is the prevention of future accidents, not the apportionment of blame or liability. It emphasizes the need for independent and objective inquiries to ensure that systemic flaws are identified without institutional bias.

The petitioner warns that India’s credibility within the ICAO framework could be jeopardized if its investigation processes are perceived as lacking independence and transparency.

Prayer for Relief: A Call for Judicial Oversight

In light of these grave allegations, the Safety Matters Foundation has sought specific reliefs from the Supreme Court. The primary prayers include:

• A direction for the immediate public disclosure of all factual data related to the crash, including the complete, unredacted DFDR and CVR records, as well as the EAFR fault messages.
• The appointment of an independent investigator with appropriate qualifications and international standing to oversee the ongoing investigation.
• A further direction that this new, independent probe be conducted under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court to ensure impartiality and adherence to due process.

The case, Safety Matters Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. (Diary No.: 53715 / 2025), filed through Advocate-on-Record Pranav Sachdeva, represents a critical juncture for aviation safety and administrative law in India. The Supreme Court's response to this PIL will not only determine the course of the AI171 crash investigation but could also set a lasting precedent on the scope of judicial review over technical investigations and the enforceability of the right to transparent governance in the face of national tragedies.