Delhi HC seeks DGCA's stand on suspension of revised pilot duty-time norms

Delhi High Court asks DGCA to clarify why new flight duty time norms were kept in abeyance, stressing that safety rules cannot remain unenforced without legal basis

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the aviation regulator to clarify its position on a challenge to its decision to keep the new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules in abeyance after widespread flight disruptions late last year.

 

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed counsel for the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to seek instructions and report back to the court on January 29.

 

“We will have it tomorrow. Please get your instructions,” the Bench said.

 

While hearing the matter, the court underlined that the duty-time norms bear directly on passenger safety and cannot be left unenforced without valid legal justification.

   

Observing that the regulator itself had framed the standards, the Bench said such rules are required to be implemented unless successfully challenged or shown to be fundamentally flawed, adding that the record indicated they had not been followed in practice.

 

The observations came on a public interest litigation filed by Sabari Roy Lenka and others questioning the DGCA’s decision to place the revised FDTL norms in abeyance.

 

The petitioners contend that the regulator lacks the authority to suspend duly notified safety regulations and that the norms must be brought into force.

 

The revised FDTL framework, notified in 2025, was aimed at enhancing flight safety by capping pilot duty hours, mandating longer rest periods and curbing night landings, in line with global fatigue-risk management standards.

 

However, when the stricter norms were rolled out, IndiGo, the country’s largest carrier, faced operational difficulties, leading to large-scale cancellations and delays in December 2025.

 

To ease passenger inconvenience, the DGCA temporarily suspended the new norms and granted limited exemptions until early February 2026 to allow airlines time to adjust.

 

Apart from assailing the suspension of the FDTL rules, the petitioners have also sought directions restraining airlines from branding themselves as “low-cost”, arguing that there is no statutory definition or legal recognition of such a category under the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Aircraft Rules, 1937, or any applicable civil aviation requirements.

 

The plea further seeks action against IndiGo for allegedly failing to provide mandatory facilities such as meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation to passengers affected by flight cancellations.