The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed concern over public safety after the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) relaxed mandatory fatigue management rules for pilots. The Court underscored that once safety regulations are notified, they must be enforced unless formally revised.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the DGCA’s decision to relax Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules on December 5, 2025. The bench remarked that concerns over pilot fatigue and public safety “cannot be brushed aside,” especially when notified regulations were not being implemented.
The judges emphasized that the regulations were binding unless struck down or modified:
“We are not considering the rationale of the regulations. When regulations are in force, they are to be implemented until revised,” the bench said, adding that fatigue rules are directly connected to passenger safety.
The relaxation of norms came amid a nationwide operational crisis faced by IndiGo in early December 2025, when hundreds of flights were cancelled due to the airline’s unpreparedness to implement new FDTL norms. To stabilise operations, DGCA permitted the substitution of leave with weekly rest—effectively allowing more pilots to fly during the disruption.
However, the petitioner, a former aircraft engineer, has alleged that this relaxation was selectively granted to IndiGo and was prima facie “mala fide.” The DGCA, however, contends that the exemption was uniformly applicable across all airlines.
Counsel for IndiGo argued that a separate petition by pilots is already pending before a single-judge bench and that the PIL lacks locus standi. The bench disagreed, stating that the petitioner’s aviation background and the wider public interest justified judicial scrutiny.
The Court directed the DGCA’s counsel to seek instructions, observing:
“It has a direct link with the safety of passengers… Once in force, the regulations must be implemented, unless decided otherwise.”
The bench also acknowledged that legal petitions often create pressure on regulators and that authorities may sometimes act under such influence.
The PIL highlights DGCA’s alleged failure to uniformly enforce ICAO-mandated fatigue rules, prevent unsafe rostering practices, or assess airline readiness before issuing exemptions. It further accuses the regulator of routinely ignoring non-compliance, thereby putting passenger safety at risk.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on Thursday, with the Court instructing DGCA’s counsel to respond with clarity on the implementation and relaxation of pilot fatigue norms.
