The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to submit a brief report outlining the procedural protocol followed in the investigation into the June 12, 2025, Air India plane crash that claimed 260 lives. The direction came after the government informed the bench that the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) probe is in its final stages.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing three petitions seeking an independent, court-monitored investigation into the tragedy, which involved Air India’s Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner (Flight AI171) en route to London’s Gatwick airport. The aircraft crashed shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, killing 241 passengers and crew, including former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), submitted that the AAIB investigation is nearly complete, though some components still require examination in foreign jurisdictions. He requested three weeks for a comprehensive hearing.
Initially, the bench considered asking for the full report in a sealed cover but accepted Mehta’s assurance that relevant details will be shared with the court. The judges clarified that AAIB’s role is confined to determining the cause of the crash and does not extend to attributing motive.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner NGO Safety Matters Foundation, pointed out that three other Boeing 787s had reportedly faced similar issues. He criticised the Centre’s failure to file responses and flagged concerns about the composition of the AAIB probe team, noting that five of its members belong to the DGCA.
Bhushan further submitted that over 8,000 pilots believe the Boeing 787 is unsafe and should be grounded. He urged the court to initiate a parallel inquiry into the crash, stating that an accident of such magnitude warrants a formal court of enquiry, not just an AAIB investigation.
Responding with a touch of sarcasm, the Solicitor General remarked, “The only way to satisfy Bhushan is to appoint a committee headed by Bhushan himself.”
CJI Surya Kant cautioned against over-reliance on unverified media reports, citing a recent news item regarding a technical issue with another Dreamliner that turned out to be false. “Let us be very conservative also on making comments on a particular airline. The Dreamliner was once hailed as the best,” he said.
The top court had earlier issued notice to the Centre and DGCA on a plea filed by Pushkaraj Sabharwal, father of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal—the pilot of the ill-fated aircraft—seeking a court-monitored investigation. The Federation of Indian Pilots and a law student have also filed similar petitions.
The court had, in a hearing on November 13, 2025, noted that the deceased pilot was not held responsible in the AAIB’s preliminary report. It had also pulled up authorities for the “unfortunate and irresponsible” selective leaking of findings that seemingly attributed fault to the pilots, triggering speculative media narratives.
One of the pleas contends that the official probe violates fundamental rights to life, equality, and access to truthful information under the Constitution. Among the deceased were 169 Indians, 52 British nationals, seven Portuguese, one Canadian and 12 crew members. The sole survivor, Vishwashkumar Ramesh, is a British national.
The Supreme Court has now directed the Centre to file a report detailing the procedural steps taken in the investigation. The matter has been listed for hearing after three weeks.
“Let us see the result of the AAIB probe and then we will see whether a court of inquiry will be needed or not,” the CJI observed.
