Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Reply on Plea for Independent Inquiry into Air India Crash That Killed 260

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard submissions from Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union government, and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for one of the intervenors.

Bhushan argued that under the government’s own rules, a “court of inquiry” is mandatory in such serious air accidents, not merely an investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). He contended that the AAIB’s preliminary report, reported as suggesting pilot error, was flawed and lacked transparency.

Solicitor General Mehta opposed the plea, citing the international regime under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). He said, “There’s an established process where even foreign nations whose citizens were victims send representatives for the investigation. The Ministry of Civil Aviation has already clarified that no blame has been attributed to anyone.”

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the AAIB’s role was not to apportion blame but to ascertain causes to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. “Mr Bhushan says supplemental investigation may go into blame apportionment,” Justice Bagchi noted.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that the ICAO-mandated regime “was not properly followed,” prompting the Bench to direct the government to file its response.

Bhushan also flagged safety concerns regarding Boeing 787 aircraft, stating that “several system failures” had occurred after the crash and that the pilots’ association had called for their grounding. Justice Kant cautioned against “pre-judging” the issue, remarking, “It should not look like a fight between airlines.”

The Bench took note of two other petitions related to the incident but refused to entertain one filed by a student, with Justice Kant remarking, “Students should focus on their studies.”

Justice Bagchi added, “There’s no insinuation against the pilot in the preliminary report.”

When the petitioner referred to a Wall Street Journal article citing unnamed Indian government sources, Justice Bagchi had clarified, “We’re not concerned with foreign reports. Your remedy, if any, lies before a foreign court.”

Calling the foreign coverage “nasty reporting,” Justice Kant had assured, “No one in India believes it was the pilot’s fault.”

The Supreme Court had issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Safety Matters Foundation, seeking an independent and court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight AI171 that killed 260 people on June 12, 2025. The Bench had heard arguments raising concerns over the impartiality and transparency of the probe conducted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB).

The petition, filed by Safety Matters Foundation, a non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting aviation safety, raises grave concerns over the selective and incomplete disclosures made by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) in its preliminary report. The ill-fated Dreamliner, operating as Air India Flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed shortly after takeoff on June 12, 2025, killing 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 individuals on the ground. The aircraft, manufactured in 2013 and powered by GEnx-1B70 engines, had a valid Airworthiness Review Certificate at the time of the accident.

Case Title: Pushkaraj Sabharwal and Anr. vs. Union of India and Others

Hearing Date: November 13, 2025

Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi