SC to hear PIL on Air India crash, slams selective release of report

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a PIL seeking an independent probe into the Air India Ahmedabad crash while criticising the selective release of the AAIB's inquiry report

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the “selective” release of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s (AAIB) report on the preliminary findings into the June 12 Air India crash in Ahmedabad.

 

A two-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said that “selective publication of the preliminary inquiry report was unfortunate”. 

“Until the investigation is complete, confidentiality must be maintained,” the bench observed.

 

While agreeing to hear a public interest litigation moved by Safety Matters Foundation, a non-profit organisation, the bench sought the Union government as well as the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)’s response.

 

In its plea, the non-profit organisation has sought an independent probe into the June 12 crash of Air India’s Boeing 787-8 aircraft operating Flight AI171 to London Gatwick. The flight had crashed into a medical hostel complex shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad. Safety Matters Foundation has, in its plea, also argued that the disclosure of partial findings violated the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017, which mandate full disclosure of factual data collected during the inquiry.

 

The plea further alleged that the report withheld crucial information such as the full Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) output, complete Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcripts with timestamps, and Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording data.

 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the organisation, raised concerns over the composition of the probe panel, saying that three of its five members were serving DGCA officers.

 

“In a five-member team, three are DGCA officers. Their negligence may itself be a subject of inquiry. This creates a very serious conflict (of interest),” Bhushan submitted.

 

Justice Kant, however, noted that the presence of serving officers did not necessarily translate into protection for erring individuals.

 

“Suppose it is found that individual engineers are at fault, they (the probe panel) may not protect,” Justice Kant said.