HC seeks DGCA, govt reply on pilot unions' contempt plea over fatigue norms

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Centre to a contempt petition filed by pilot unions alleging that the aviation regulator diluted court-mandated fatigue norms by granting relaxations to airlines. Justice Amit Sharma issued notice to the DGCA and the Centre in a plea moved by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) and the Indian Pilots Guild (IPG), and fixed the matter for further hearing in April 2026.

 

The case is related to proceedings before the High Court over the enforcement of flight duty time limitation (FDTL) standards, which are intended to address pilot fatigue and enhance flight safety.

   

In February 2025, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju had taken on record an affidavit from the DGCA outlining a phased schedule for implementing the revised FDTL norms under the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2024. According to the undertaking, 15 provisions were to come into force by July 1, 2025, with the remaining seven to be implemented from November 1, 2025. The court recorded that the authorities would be bound by these timelines.

 

Thereafter, in April 2025, while disposing of connected petitions filed by pilot bodies, the court noted that the process of notifying CAR 2024 had begun. Airlines were directed to submit their fatigue management schemes to the DGCA within three weeks, while pilot associations were given liberty to seek legal remedies in case of non-compliance.

 

In November 2025, the FIP initiated contempt proceedings, alleging that the DGCA had acted in breach of the assurances given to the court. According to the petitioners, the regulator granted extensions or relaxations to several airlines and approved fatigue management schemes that departed from CAR 2024 and the agreed timelines. They referred to alleged relaxations granted in October 2025 to carriers such as Air India, IndiGo, SpiceJet, Alliance Air, Akasa Air, and cargo operators, including Blue Dart Aviation and QuikJet.

 

The unions contend that these deviations were allowed without any exceptional circumstances and posed risks to pilot alertness and passenger safety.

 

The matter first came up before Justice Sharma on November 18 and was adjourned to December 15 to allow additional material to be placed on record. The core question before the court is whether the DGCA’s post-affidavit actions amounted to a wilful departure from judicially recorded commitments or fell within its statutory discretion as a regulator.

 

Counsel for the pilot unions submitted on Tuesday that multiple meetings involving the DGCA, airlines, and pilot representatives had taken place under the court’s oversight, resulting in a broad consensus on both the content of CAR 2024 and its phased implementation. Operational issues raised by airlines, such as manpower shortages, software upgrades and the risk of flight disruptions, were, according to the unions, already factored into the rollout plan accepted by the court.

 

The grievance, the unions argued, was that after securing the court’s approval of the affidavit and timelines, the DGCA permitted airlines to suspend or modify CAR provisions through individual communications, without informing pilot bodies or seeking the court’s leave.

 

Opposing the contempt plea, counsel for the DGCA submitted that there was no judicial order freezing the contents of the CAR as placed before the court. While the regulator was bound by the implementation schedule, it retained powers under the Aircraft Act, 1934, and the Aircraft Rules to allow temporary exemptions or variations where warranted, the DGCA argued.

 

The regulator further maintained that any relaxations granted were temporary, airline-specific and subject to periodic review, and that CAR 2024 continued to remain operative. It was also pointed out that challenges to such variations were already pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.

 

After hearing the parties, the court observed that the issue of whether variations granted after the filing of the affidavit could constitute contempt required closer scrutiny. It accordingly directed the DGCA to file its response to the contempt petition.

 

Plea before Delhi HC seeking inquiry against DGCA for IndiGo crisis

 

A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking an inquiry against the DGCA for the IndiGo crisis and fourfold compensation to passengers who were left stranded at airports due to flight cancellations.

 

The plea, filed by the Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), is listed for hearing on December 17 (Wednesday) before a Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.