The Delhi High Court has questioned the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) over its decision to indefinitely withdraw a new regulation barring airlines from substituting pilots’ weekly rest days with leave. The court asked the regulator to explain why this decision, unlike other exemptions, was issued without a time limit, especially as it impacts all airlines.
A bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the DGCA’s December 5, 2025 order, which relaxed Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms for airlines. The regulation in question, effective November 1, 2025, had prohibited the substitution of weekly rest with leave to address pilot fatigue.
However, in early December, the DGCA granted airlines an exemption from this norm following large-scale flight cancellations by IndiGo. The airline had struggled to meet the updated FDTL requirements, prompting the DGCA to act ostensibly to “reduce disruptions and normalise operations.”
The High Court issued notice to both the DGCA and IndiGo, directing them to respond to the PIL within two weeks. Noting that two separate relaxations were issued by the DGCA on the same day—one relating to night duty norms valid till February 10, and the other regarding rest day substitution with no specified end—the bench pressed the regulator for clarity:
“If you are issuing two letters on the same day — one is till February 10 but the first one is indefinite. This letter is forever. So if your response on the first letter was with regard to disruption and the second letter also was disruption but you have limited the time up to February 10. Why not for the other one?”
The bench further remarked that the grievance of the petitioners appeared to center around the arbitrary mixing of leave and rest days, and emphasized that the withdrawal of the new rest-day rule seemed to benefit only one airline but affected the entire sector.
Appearing for the DGCA, its counsel stated that the relaxation was granted based on an audit and representations from airlines about difficulties pilots faced due to overlapping leave and rest requirements. She clarified that while weekly rest remained mandatory under Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), leaves were governed by contracts between pilots and airlines.
The counsel also confirmed that a separate exemption from night duty rules was issued to IndiGo on December 5, with a validity till February 10.
The PIL, filed by Sabari Roy Lenka, Aman Monga, and Kiran Singh, alleges that the DGCA’s relaxations were illegal and tailored to suit IndiGo. The petition contends that the regulator violated its obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) framework by failing to enforce fatigue prevention regulations uniformly. It further accuses the DGCA of allowing unsafe rostering practices and failing to assess airline preparedness or suspend non-compliant schedules.
At a prior hearing, the High Court had remarked that public safety concerns stemming from non-implementation of anti-fatigue norms could not be “brushed aside.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing in April, with the court awaiting the DGCA and IndiGo’s formal responses to the issues raised in the petition.
