New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the appointment of a retired judge of the top court to examine Air India’s safety practices and related procedures, questioning why the petition singled out the airline that had recently faced a major tragedy.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter filed by petitioner in person Narendera Kumar Goswami, a lawyer who claimed to be a victim of an “unfortunate incident” involving the airline. The court advised him to withdraw the PIL and approach the appropriate forum if he had specific grievances.
“Do not give the impression that you are playing with other airlines. Why target Air India only, which recently witnessed an unfortunate tragedy? If you want some regulatory mechanism in place, why did you not make other airlines a party to your petition? Why only Air India?” the Bench asked.
Justice Kant further remarked, “We also travel every week and know what is the status. There was a tragedy, a very unfortunate one. This is not a time to run down an airline.”
The PIL, filed in July, sought directions to constitute an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to scrutinise Air India’s safety practices, maintenance procedures, and operational protocols, with a report to be submitted within three months. It also requested a comprehensive safety audit of the airline’s entire fleet by an international aviation safety agency accredited by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), in order to address deficiencies noted in the 2024 ICAO audit report, with completion within six months.
Additionally, the petition sought directions to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to implement a transparent, publicly accessible reporting system for all aviation safety incidents, including a centralised database, ensuring compliance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and international best practices.
On the matter of compensation, the PIL urged that Air India be directed to provide payments to the families of AI-171 crash victims in line with the Montreal Convention, 1999, as well as to offer ex gratia payments or compensation to passengers of AI-143 for distress and inconvenience caused by a safety incident, in accordance with applicable laws and industry standards.
The London bound Air India flight AI-171, a Boeing Dreamliner 787-8 with 242 passengers and crew on board, crashed moments after take off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad on the afternoon of 12 June. The tragedy, described by the court as “very unfortunate”, has already prompted significant public debate on air safety measures in the country.
By refusing to admit the PIL, the Supreme Court signalled that while aviation safety remains a matter of public concern, targeting a single airline, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, may not serve the broader interest of systemic improvements. The court left the petitioner free to raise concerns before the relevant regulatory bodies.
