Air India Crash: Supreme Court Seeks Protocol Report From Centre; Urges Restraint on Remarks Targeting Specific Aircraft Brand
Evan V
In proceedings arising out of the Air India aircraft crash, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday directed the Union of India to place on record, within three weeks, a report detailing the procedural protocol followed for enquiring into the accident, which has been stated to have resulted in 260 fatalities. During the hearing, the Chief Justice also cautioned against reporting on alleged technical faults and called for restraint in public commentary directed at any particular aircraft make.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the direction after hearing Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (appearing for the pilots' federation and the father of pilot Sumeet Sabharwal), Advocate Prashant Bhushan, and the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
In the course of submissions, the Chief Justice orally observed: "This very unfortunate accident...261 innocent lives [lost]... it's not a small tragedy for any nation. For a parent losing a pilot son like this, we can understand...we have fully sympathy with the father and we really do not know how he will be able to come out of such a shock and void created. But let us also be very very conservative in making observations against any particular brand of aircraft. There was a time Dreamliner was treated as one of the best and safest aircraft"
Also Read: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Invoked To Interdict An Arbitral Award: Supreme Court
Mr Bhushan contended that, even under the Government's own framework, a crash of this magnitude warrants a Court of Inquiry. He further flagged concerns regarding the ongoing investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, submitting that five members of the inquiry team are officials of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation—whose actions, he submitted, are also under scrutiny.
Mr Bhushan also alleged that following the crash, three other Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft had reportedly faced similar technical issues. "Don't go by the media reports" Chief Justice replied on this.
The Chief Justice referred to a recent media report about an aircraft operating from London to Bengaluru, where an issue was initially reported but later clarified by an official airline statement. He remarked: "I have been following closely...on Sunday only, I was on a Dreamliner going from Paris to Delhi..."
Mr Bhushan further claimed that a large body of pilots had written to the Government expressing concerns regarding the safety of a particular aircraft type and seeking grounding measures. The Solicitor General responded: "Nobody has told us" In a lighter exchange, the Chief Justice remarked: "We will strongly recommend travelling by different airlines..."
On behalf of the pilots' federation and the pilots' families, Mr Sankaranarayanan referred to prior crash investigations involving a different aircraft type, in which responsibility was initially attributed to the pilots, but subsequent findings by the Federal Aviation Administration reportedly identified defects in the aircraft. He also cited instances in India where Courts of Inquiry were constituted and, according to him, headed by former judges.
When an issue was raised concerning notices issued to the pilot's family members—who are themselves pilots—the Chief Justice is stated to have deprecated the disclosure of such matters in open court.
The matter was re-listed after the Solicitor General submitted that the AAIB inquiry is nearing completion and sought additional time. The Bench impressed upon the petitioners to await the outcome of the statutory investigation. On the contention regarding the presence of DGCA officials on the AAIB team, Justice Bagchi reiterated that the inquiry's object is to determine causation rather than to fix culpability.
CJI Suryakant remarked: "Let's see what kind of Court of Inquiry is necessitated based on outcome [of the AAIB enquiry]"
The Court also recalled that in September 2025, it had expressed concern over the alleged selective leakage of the AAIB's preliminary report and its impact on the public narrative. The Bench had orally observed that the selective and piecemeal publication of the preliminary inquiry report was "unfortunate", underscoring the need for strict confidentiality until completion of the inquiry. It was also noted that, in November, the Court orally stated that no blame could be attributed to pilot Sumeet Sabharwal.
Case Title: SAFETY MATTERS FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No: DIARY No.53715/2025 (and connected cases)
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
