Himalaya Harbinger Rudrapur Bureau
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought an independent audit of Air India’s safety practices and maintenance procedures in the wake of the June 2025 Ahmedabad plane crash, cautioning that one tragic incident should not become an occasion to single out the airline.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told petitioner Narendra Kumar Goswami, a lawyer, that if the aim was to ensure passenger safety, the scope could not be confined to one carrier alone.
One unfortunate event cannot mean you go after just one airline,” said the bench during the hearing. “Why only Air India? Should there not be such a mechanism for all airlines? There was a very unfortunate tragedy but that should not become an opportunity to run down the airline. We also travel very frequently.”
The petition was filed after flight AI 171, a Gatwick-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner, crashed within minutes of take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12, killing 241 of the 242 people on board. The crash claimed life of another 19 people on the ground. Among the deceased were 181 Indian nationals and 52 UK citizens. Air India, now owned by the Tata Group, had been in the midst of a major operational overhaul when the crash occurred
Goswami’s plea sought a comprehensive safety audit of Air India’s entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), under the supervision of a former judge of the Supreme Court. It also asked for the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to be directed to put in place a “robust mechanism” for ensuring the airline’s operational safety.
The bench, however, questioned the limited focus. “If you want a regulatory mechanism, you must implead all airlines, including foreign airlines. You should first go to the authorities concerned with persuasive suggestions and we are certain they will pay heed,” the court said.
When the petitioner replied that he had an “exceptionally bad experience” with Air India, the bench noted that complaints by individual passengers could be pursued under consumer protection laws, rather than through a PIL targeting one operator.
The judges also cautioned that singling out one airline in such litigation could raise doubts about the petitioner’s motives. “If you are going to pick on just one airline, it may also give an impression that you have been set up by a competitor,” the bench remarked.
In its brief order, the court recorded that the petitioner had sought to withdraw the PIL to first approach “appropriate authorities” with his suggestions. “The petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition to avail of appropriate remedies before appropriate authorities first,” the order stated.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of India led the inquiry into the incident, with participation from the US National Transportation Safety Board, the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and Boeing representatives.
The preliminary report by India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) revealed that both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF seconds after takeoff, resulting in a loss of thrust. The cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot questioning the fuel cutoff, with the other denying responsibility. The Ram Air Turbine, a backup power system, deployed automatically, and although one engine began to recover after the switches were returned to RUN, the aircraft could not regain altitude. A Mayday call was recorded moments before the crash.
The Tata Group offered ex gratia compensation of ₹1 crore for families of deceased passengers and ₹25 lakh for families of ground victims. Additionally, Tata has established the AI-171 Memorial and Welfare Trust with a total corpus of ₹500 crore, funded by contributions of ₹250 crore each from Tata Sons and Tata Trusts to support the long-term needs of affected families.
