SC slams selective release of Air India Ahmedabad crash report, orders fair probe

Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday criticised the “selective and piecemeal” release of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) preliminary report on the June 12 Air India crash in Ahmedabad, calling parts of it “irresponsible” for suggesting pilot error before the inquiry was completed.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh said the partial disclosure of findings had created a misleading perception.

“The selective publication of the preliminary inquiry report was unfortunate. Till the enquiry is complete, it is important to maintain absolute confidentiality,” the Bench observed, adding that aviation tragedies should not be “encashed” by rival airlines or used for commercial advantage.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Safety Matters Foundation, a non-profit led by former pilot Amit Singh, which sought a court-monitored independent probe into the disaster that killed 260 people, including 19 on the ground.

The plea alleged that the preliminary report violated the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017, which require full disclosure of factual data gathered in the early stages of an inquiry. Issuing notices to the Union government and the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the Bench directed them to ensure a “fair, impartial and expeditious investigation by an expert body.”

The AAIB’s preliminary findings stated that the aircraft’s fuel control switches shifted to the “CUTOFF” position three seconds after take-off, cutting fuel supply and shutting down both engines. A cockpit voice recording captured one pilot asking the other, “why did he cut off?”, with the colleague replying that he had not done so. The report identified fuel cut-off as the immediate cause of the crash but did not clarify whether the switch movement was accidental or deliberate.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, questioned the composition of the AAIB probe team, pointing out that three of its five members were serving officers of the DGCA’s Air Safety–Western Region.

This, he argued, created a “serious conflict of interest” since the DGCA’s role could itself come under scrutiny. Justice Kant, however, remarked that the presence of serving officers did not necessarily mean they would shield erring individuals, saying, “Suppose it is found that some engineers are at fault, they may not protect.”

The petition further alleged that the AAIB report withheld critical information, including the complete Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) output, full Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcripts with time stamps, and Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data.

Instead, it accused the report of offering selective disclosures that created a biased impression of pilot error while deflecting responsibility from the airline and manufacturer.

“This case is not merely about one accident but about preserving public faith in civil aviation safety in India,” Amit Singh said, stressing that transparency and accountability were vital to prevent future tragedies.

On June 12, Air India’s Boeing 787-8 operating Flight AI171 to London Gatwick crashed into a medical hostel complex shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad. The crash killed 265 people, including 241 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 people on the ground.

Among the dead were 169 Indians, 52 Britons, seven Portuguese nationals, one Canadian, and 12 crew members. The sole survivor was identified as Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a British national.