The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a public interest litigation alleging that the government’s probe into the deadly June 12 Air India crash violates citizens’ fundamental rights. The PIL, filed by NGO Safety Matters Foundation, argues that the official investigation lacks transparency and demands an independent inquiry headed by a former Supreme Court judge.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard submissions by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO ‘Safety Matters Foundation’. Bhushan told the court that neither the Union government nor the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) had filed their response to the PIL, which raises concerns about the integrity of the probe into the crash of Air India Flight AI171.
The flight, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner operated by Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and co-pilot Captain Clive Kunder, took off from Ahmedabad and crashed en route to London’s Gatwick airport, killing 260 people, including 241 passengers and 12 crew members. Among the dead were 169 Indians, 52 Britons, seven Portuguese nationals, one Canadian, and only one survivor—a British national named Vishwashkumar Ramesh.
Bhushan argued that the issue was not just technical but one of public safety and accountability. “The entire pilots association is saying there is a problem in the Boeing 787 aircraft which needs to be grounded,” he submitted. He further urged that a parallel judicial inquiry be conducted, stating that a routine AAIB investigation is inadequate for an accident of this scale.
The PIL is one of three filed in connection with the crash, including one by a law student and another by Pushkaraj Sabharwal, father of the deceased pilot, Captain Sabharwal. On November 13 last year, the apex court had noted that the AAIB’s preliminary report did not blame the pilot and issued notices to the Centre and the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on the father’s plea seeking a court-monitored probe.
Pushkaraj Sabharwal and the Federation of Indian Pilots have jointly demanded that the investigation be overseen by a former Supreme Court judge to ensure independence and credibility.
In a previous hearing on September 22, the Supreme Court had strongly criticised the “selective publication” of the preliminary AAIB report. It called the move “unfortunate and irresponsible” for prematurely attributing blame and influencing the media narrative without a full and fair inquiry.
While the court has agreed to take up the PIL, it is expected to assign a specific date soon. The Chief Justice indicated that the bench would accommodate the matter once the ongoing batch of election-related petitions is concluded.
