Air India Flight Crash | 'Unfortunate': Supreme Court Criticises Media Narrative Of Pilot Error From Selective Leak Of Preliminary Report

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over the selective leak of the preliminary inquiry report, which fueled a media narrative blaming pilot error for the crash of Air India Flight AI171 in June 2025.

The Court 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.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a PIL seeking an independent, Court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight, which took place shortly after its take off from Ahmedabad airport, killing 260 people, on June 12, 2025.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that a five-member team had been constituted to investigate the accident, of which three members are serving officers of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). He argued that this raised a serious conflict of interest since the role of the DGCA itself was under scrutiny. “How can officers of the very organisation whose role is likely to be examined be part of the inquiry?” he asked.

Justice Kant observed that while the demand for a fair and impartial inquiry was understandable, he questioned the petitioner's demand for disclosure of the Flight Data Recorder. Bhushan responded that the FDR contained critical information about faults that may have occurred. Justice Kant, however, cautioned that it was not advisable to release such data prematurely. "It's not advisable to release [at this point]," he said.

Bhushan submitted that he had been contacted by pilots and families of the victims, who expressed concern that a cryptic sentence in the preliminary report, suggesting a pilot had asked another why fuel was cut off, was seized upon by the international media to build a narrative of pilot error. “That was very unfortunate,” Justice Kant observed.  

"Instead of piecemeal leaking of information, somebody should maintain confidentiality till regular inquiry is taken to logical conclusion," Justice Kant said.

Bhushan further referred to aviation analysts and podcasts like AirLine Matters, which, he said, responsibly examined the incident and concluded that the crash was due to an electrical failure that caused both engines to shut down, not pilot negligence. He criticised the leak of isolated lines from the preliminary report that, according to him, distorted the larger picture.

During the hearing, the Court stressed the need to avoid rumours and speculations till the final enquiry is complete. “When this kind of tragedy happens, one airline would be blamed. Boeing and Airbus will not be attributed with fault, and so the entire airline is run down,” Justice Kant remarked.

Bhushan again flagged the reports blaming the pilots. "Preliminary report was suggestive of pilot error, that was taken by so many media organizations," he said.

"That was unfortunate," Justice Kant stated.

Bhushan pointed out that The Wall Street Journal also published a report blaming the senior pilot, even before the official release of the preliminary report. He also said that many media stories went around saying that a pilot was suicidal. "If he was suicidal, there are 100s of other ways...ridiculous story..." Bhushan said.

Justice Kant said that such media reports were irresponsible.  "Very irresponsible kind of [reporting]...confidentiality is the most important thing in these matters," he said.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court issued notice to the respondents on the limited prayer for  “free, fair, impartial, expeditious and independent investigation by an expert body."

The petition, filed by Safety Matters Foundation, an aviation safety NGO led by Capt. Amit Singh FRAeS, under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleges that the manner in which the probe has been conducted violates the fundamental rights to life, equality, and truthful information.

According to the petition, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) issued its Preliminary Report on July 12, 2025, attributing the crash to “fuel cutoff switches” being moved from RUN to CUTOFF, thereby suggesting pilot error. The petitioner contends that the report withholds crucial flight data such as the complete Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) output, the full Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcript with timestamps, and the Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data, all of which are essential for an objective understanding of the incident.

The petition further argues that the report downplays documented system anomalies, including fuel switch defects, electrical faults, RAT deployment and electrical disturbances, and prematurely points towards pilot error in a manner contrary to Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention, which mandates an independent and prevention-focused investigation.

The petitioner has also flagged a conflict of interest, noting that officers of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) dominate the investigating team even though the DGCA itself is under scrutiny for regulatory oversight lapses. Such an approach, it is argued, undermines public trust in aviation safety and could harm India's credibility under the standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The PIL submits that "selective and biased" inquiry in a disaster of this magnitude violates Article 21 of the Constitution by compromising citizens' right to life, safety and dignity, is arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, and suppresses truthful information in breach of Article 19(1)(a). It warns that failure to address these issues sets a dangerous precedent by leaving systemic risks unaddressed, potentially endangering future passengers.

The petitioner has therefore sought directions for the immediate public disclosure of all basic factual data relating to the crash, including DFDR, CVR and fault message records, and the appointment of an independent investigator of appropriate qualification and standing, under the supervision of the Supreme Court, to oversee the ongoing investigation.

Notably, another PIL has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking suspension of Air India's Boeing fleet till appropriate safety and security audits are conducted. The same is yet to be listed. Two doctors have also written a letter to the Chief Justice of India seeking suo motu action by the Supreme Court with respect to the Ahmedabad plane crash. This letter seeks directions to the Central Government to disburse compensation to the victims at the earliest and a thorough investigation to ascertain the cause of the crash.

In August, a bench led by Justice Kant refused to entertain a PIL seeking independent probe into Air India's safety checks, maintenance procedures, etc. in the aftermath of the Air India plane crash. The petition was dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner file an appropriate writ petition at an appropriate time.

Case Title: Safety Matters Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. | Diary No.53715/2025