The Supreme Court on Monday sought replies from the Union government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), asking them to respond on how they propose to ensure a “free, fair, impartial and expeditious” investigation into the Air India plane crash that killed 260 people in June, and the need for a court-monitored probe by an independent investigator.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotishwar Singh issued notices to the Centre and DGCA, seeking their responses in two weeks on a petition moved by NGO and aviation consultant Safety Matters Foundation.
The court also described as “unfortunate” the public release of a preliminary report by DGCA that appeared to imply that one of the pilots could be at fault for moving the fuel control switches from “RUN” to “CUTOFF” seconds after takeoff, resulting in loss of thrust.
During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that despite 102 days having passed since the crash, there was “no clarity on what happened, why it happened and what precautions are to be taken”, leaving passengers in similar aircraft at risk.
He also flagged the conflict of interest in the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) probe panel, three of whose five members belong to the national regulator, which is under scrutiny for alleged negligence.
{{/usCountry}}He also flagged the conflict of interest in the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) probe panel, three of whose five members belong to the national regulator, which is under scrutiny for alleged negligence.
{{/usCountry}}The bench acknowledged the demand for an impartial inquiry, but raised concerns about making all information public before the probe concludes. “You want an impartial inquiry and we understand it. But why do you want everything to come in the public domain?” the bench asked. Bhushan insisted that the flight data recorder data be made public, to which the bench responded: “That can come only after the regular inquiry is over. It may not be advisable to make everything public at this stage.”
When Bhushan pointed out that the preliminary report had selectively blamed the pilots, the court called it “very unfortunate”. “That is why we say some confidentiality has to be maintained. Privacy and dignity must be respected, because even though the pilots are no more, their families are still there and will be affected by such leaks,” the bench said.
The court further cautioned that premature disclosures could distort the picture: “Instead of selective leaks, the final outcome of the inquiry should come out. Of course, the inquiry has to be fair. But the inquiry should be allowed to complete for the whole picture to come out.”
The bench added that such investigations “should be completed expeditiously without giving anyone the opportunity for rumour or misrepresentation” and remarked that air accidents are sometimes exploited by rival airlines to damage reputations.
The court order made clear that the notice to the Centre and DGCA is limited to ensuring a “free, fair, impartial and expeditious investigation by an expert body,” and that the court is currently not considering making any part of the probe public.
On June 12, Air India Flight AI-171 carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members crashed shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 229 passengers, all crew members, and 19 people on the ground.
The AAIB led the inquiry into the tragedy, with participation from the US National Transportation Safety Board, the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and Boeing representatives.
On July 12, the preliminary report 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.
Since then, a report from the Wall Street Journal alleged that the captain of the flight, Sumeet Sabharwal, might have switched off the power even as AAIB has dismissed the charges and called the reporting “irresponsible”.
The petition alleged that in 2018, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin warning of possible disengagement of the fuel control switch locking feature in the same make of aircraft, but compliance was not ensured since the directive was advisory, not mandatory.
Stressing the larger significance of its plea, the petitioner said: “The importance of this petition lies not only in seeking answers for the present disaster but in safeguarding the lives of countless others who continue to fly with the belief that the skies are secure.”