 "indigo airlines, indigo")
Budget airline IndiGo could face its toughest regulatory action yet if aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) concludes that the airline deliberately did not have enough pilots on its rosters to successfully implement the revised pilot duty norms, legal experts said.
“If DGCA concludes that the carrier wilfully delayed a mandated safety-related roster change, the consequences become qualitatively harsher,” said Raheel Patel, partner, Gandhi Law Associates.
The revised Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) Rules entered their second and final phase on November 1, activating seven clauses deferred during July’s rollout.
Phase II tightened limits on pilot duty during the early-morning “window of circadian low” (roughly 0200-0600 hours), when fatigue risk peaks. Under Para 3.11, “night duty” covers any duty overlapping 0000-0600 in a pilot’s acclimatised time zone; Para 6.1.4 caps flight time in such periods at 8 hours, total duty at 10 hours, and typically limits pilots to two landings.
Following the cancellations, the DGCA set up a four-member committee to investigate the inability to accurately forecast crew availability, conduct timely training, and realign rosters despite advance regulatory intimation.
In its submissions before the DGCA, Indigo has said that the “massive flight cancellations/delays” stemmed from its failure to anticipate the impact of Phase II FDTL norms on its roster from November 1.
The carrier admitted its crew planning was “insufficient” and “indicated” that new recruitment will take place in the coming days to meet required standards.
Indigo has also told the DGCA that of the 1,232 flight cancellations in November, 755 were specifically due to the lack of sufficient pilots that were needed to implement the new duty hour norms.
“Intentional non-compliance is treated as a systemic safety violation, not an operational lapse. DGCA could issue a show-cause notice, impose penalties, tighten the airline’s operating permit conditions, or even cap capacity,” Patel said.
Pilot associations have also accused IndiGo of deliberately creating a pilot shortage to pressure the regulator to dilute the new FDTL norms.
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) India president Sam Thomas said disruptions were “artificially created” and compared the airline’s conduct to “spoilt children delaying flights to put pressure on the ministry and DGCA.”
The Federation of Indian Pilots made similar allegations, calling the chaos “a direct consequence of cost cuts and a hiring freeze.”
Under the Aircraft Act and Rules, DGCA’s enforcement powers are extensive. It can impose fines of up to ₹1 crore for serious breaches, suspend personnel approvals, or restrict flight operations until compliance is demonstrated.
In extreme cases, it can suspend or revoke an airline’s air operator permit.
The regulator has previously penalised carriers for safety violations, ₹90 lakh on Air India for unqualified pilots and ₹80 lakh for rest-period breaches. It can order special audits or detain aircraft if crew availability is compromised.
“The DGCA’s penal arsenal is wider than most people assume,” said B. Shravanth Shanker, advocate-on-record, Supreme Court.
“If IndiGo is found to have deliberately manipulated operations to undermine safety oversight, the regulator may consider unprecedented sanctions," he added.
While the civil aviation ministry does not directly penalise airlines, it can intervene through policy directions and binding orders under Section 5A of the Aircraft Act.
“The ministry tends not to run parallel enforcement tracks, but it can demand compliance reports, order DGCA to assess consumer obligations, and issue directives when public interest is affected,” Patel added.
Passenger’s Route
For passengers, the legal route is more straightforward. DGCA’s Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) mandate compensation for cancellations within the airline’s control, up to Rs 10,000 for flights cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice, along with full refunds and accommodation where required.
Passengers notified two weeks or more before departure are entitled to a full refund or rebooking at no extra cost. In comparison, those notified between 24 hours and two weeks must be offered an alternative flight within two hours of the original departure time.
Failure to comply invites DGCA action under CAR provisions and possible penalty orders.
Consumers may also seek redress under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019, for deficiencies in service or unfair trade practices. They can also file complaints through DGCA’s AirSewa portal or directly with the District, State, or National Consumer Commissions, depending on the claim value, with compensation often ranging from Rs 25,000 to Rs 1 lakh for distress or poor handling.
Legal experts said large-scale cancellations, such as IndiGo’s current episode, could also trigger class-action complaints under the CPA framework if passengers suffer collective loss.
“Air transport falls squarely within the definition of ‘service’ under the CPA,” said Yatharth Rohila, Partner, Aeddhaas Legal LLP.
“Passengers can claim damages for financial loss, inconvenience, and even mental agony. Non-compliance with Commission orders can attract imprisonment of up to three years," he said.
Experts also note that DGCA’s new FDTL norms were developed through a consultative process and gave airlines nearly two years to prepare.
“This episode seems rooted in implementation and manpower-planning deficiencies rather than inadequate consultation,” observed Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India. “If the inquiry confirms deliberate delay, DGCA is legally equipped to impose severe corrective measures.”
