Air India crash: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, AAIB

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 13) stated that the objective of the probe by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) into the fatal Air India plane crash was not to blame anyone, but rather to determine the reason behind the incident to ensure that it can be prevented in future.

The top court was hearing three petitions seeking an independent probe into the June 12 crash of Air India flight. These include one filed by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal’s father, Pushkaraj Sabharwal; a public-interest litigation by Captain Amit Singh of the Safety Matters Foundation; and a third filed by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP).

Arguments and counter-arguments

The apex court bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, directed the Union Government and AAIB to file their replies. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for one of the petitioners, told the court that there must be a formal investigation for catastrophic events involving potential system failures.

“By the government’s own rules, a crash of this scale, with more than 260 fatalities, requires a Court of Inquiry, not a mere AAIB investigation,” he argued.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, replied that the investigation was proceeding under an international regime recognised by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and warned that “any interference could be counter-productive.” He also said that the AAIB's preliminary report did not blame the pilots.

The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to conduct a judicial inquiry into the Air India crash, arguing that the current AAIB investigation is biased. The petition calls for the AAIB inquiry to be stopped due to its team including officials from bodies whose roles are being questioned, and seeks a new, independent panel headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. The Supreme Court expressed concern over premature leaks from the preliminary report that suggested pilot error and emphasised the need for confidentiality during the investigation.

SC directs Centre to respond

Justice Kant then directed the Centre to submit its written response. He also observed, “Let’s not prejudge anything.” The Bench also noted concerns raised by the Air Line Pilots Association of India (ALPA-India) and by the Federation of Indian Pilots, whose petitions were tagged with the main matter, before adjourning the case to await the government’s response.

Also Read: Air India 171 crash: A father's plea for his dead son

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) detailed a sequence of ignored technical warnings and post-crash inconsistencies. According to the petition, flight records showed Bus Power Control Unit (BPCU) gateway operation faults on both left and right sides at 07:53 UTC, minutes before take-off, which indicated compromised electrical signal transmission to the engines. Other defects on board included a problem with the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB).

The petition also claimed that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) was deployed before engine shutdown, another sign of electrical issues.

A joint statement issued by the AIPL-India after the hearing underlined that the petitions “raise issues far beyond a routine accident investigation... emerging technical evidence suggests that the Boeing 787-8 experienced a complex, multi-layered systems failure involving electrical transients, hydraulic interruption, and possible loss-of-command-authority anomalies".