Air India Crash At Ahmedabad | 'Nobody Can Blame The Pilot', Says Supreme Court; Slams 'Nasty Reporting' By Foreign Media

The Supreme Court on Friday orally observed that no blame could be attributed to the pilot of the Air India flight to London that crashed in Ahmedabad in June this year, claiming 260 lives.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, the father of Commander Sumeet Sabharwal, one of the pilots of the ill-fated flight, seeking an independent judicial probe into the tragedy.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, contended that the current investigation being conducted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) was not independent.

“I am the father of the Commander of the plane... I am 91 years old. This is a non-independent investigation. It should have been independent. It has taken four months,” Sankaranarayanan submitted, urging the Court to order a judicially monitored probe under Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, which mandates impartiality in accident investigations.

The Bench took note of the submissions and issued notice to the Union Government, observing that the case would be taken up along with another related matter on November 10.

“Nobody Can Blame Him For Anything”

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant addressed the petitioner's concern that his late son might be unfairly blamed for the accident.

“It's extremely unfortunate, this crash, but you should not carry this burden that your son is being blamed. Nobody can blame him for anything,” Justice Kant told the Senior Advocate.

Justice Bagchi also clarified that there was no insinuation against the pilot in the preliminary AAIB report.

“One pilot asked whether the fuel was cut off by the other; the other said no. There's no suggestion of fault in that report,” the judge noted.

Sankaranarayanan pointed out that there were persistent safety issues involving Boeing aircraft globally, adding that the Ahmedabad crash must be viewed in that larger context.

Justice Bagchi, however, observed that if there was a challenge to the process itself, it might require questioning the statutory framework of the investigation.

“If you challenge the investigation, you have to challenge the statutory provisions of the Act itself,” he remarked.

'Nasty Reporting' : Court on Foreign Reports

The petitioner also drew the Court's attention to a Wall Street Journal article which, he claimed, suggested pilot error and cited an unnamed Indian government source.

The Bench, however, made it clear that foreign media reports would not influence the judicial process in India.

“We are not bothered by foreign reports. Your remedy should then be before a foreign court,” Justice Bagchi said, while Justice Kant added, “That is nasty reporting. No one in India believes it was the pilot's fault.”

Background of the petition

Briefly put, the pilot's father, alongwith the 'Federation of Indian Pilots', moved the Court seeking independent investigation of the crash by a panel of aviation experts headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

The petitioners further sought closure of the ongoing investigation by Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), pointing out that the investigation team comprised of officials from Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and other state aviation authorities, whose actions were themselves under question.

According to their averments, the preliminary report of AAIB was biased, as it hinted at pilot error without factoring in critical technical and systemic factors. 

Notably, in September, while dealing with a PIL seeking Court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight AI171, the Supreme Court expressed concern over selective leak of AAIB's preliminary inquiry report, which fueled a media narrative blaming pilot error for the crash. It orally observed that the selective and piecemeal publication of the preliminary inquiry report was "unfortunate". Till the enquiry is complete, it is important to maintain absolute confidentiality, the Court stressed.

Case Title: PUSHKAR RAJ SABHARWAL AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025