Air India crash: ‘No one in India believes it was the pilot’s fault,’ says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday, November 7, 2025, orally observed that no fault could be attributed to the pilot in command of the Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft, which crashed shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad on June 12.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, father of late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, seeking a judicially monitored inquiry into the crash and discontinuation of the investigation currently being conducted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB).

Also read | Ahmedabad Air India flight crash: What did AAIB’s preliminary report reveal?

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the ongoing investigation lacks independence. “I am the father of the commander of the aircraft… I am 91 years old. This is a non-independent investigation,” he said, calling on the Panel to launch a judicially monitored investigation into the crash.

Addressing the petitioner’s concerns that his son might be unfairly held responsible, Judge Kant said, “This accident is an extremely unfortunate incident, but you should not bear the burden of being blamed for your son. No one can blame him for anything.”

Judge Bagchi also agreed and noted that the preliminary AAIB report did not contain any negative statements against the pilot. “One of the pilots asked if the other pilot had cut off his fuel, the other said no. There is no fault in that report,” he said.

The court also drew attention to the following statement of the plaintiff: Wall Street Magazine The report attributed the crash to pilot error based on an unnamed government source and declared that such foreign reports would carry no weight in court proceedings.

Judge Bagchi said, “We are not interested in what the foreign media reports say. If you believe that they have slandered your son, your remedy lies in a foreign court.” Justice Kant added, “This is outrageous reporting. No one in India believes it was the pilot’s fault.”

Accordingly, the Board issued a notification regarding the defense and ordered it to be heard along with a pending petition submitted by the non-governmental organization Security Matters on November 10. He also requested a response from the Center and the General Directorate of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to his request for an independent investigation.

The petition stated that the official investigation carried out by the AAIB and DGCA was “flawed” and that important technical evidence was either misinterpreted or ignored. It was also noted that the Ram Air Turbine (RAT), an emergency power generator that automatically activates when both the aircraft’s primary and backup electrical systems fail, was activated before the pilots made any control input. Allegedly this indicated a possible electrical or software malfunction rather than pilot error.

The petition also criticized the failure to inspect damage to the flight data recorder, stating that the protective casing was found melted but without soot deposits; In the petition, this detail is described as a serious investigative error.

On 22 September, the Supreme Court, while hearing another petition seeking a court-monitored independent investigation into the crash, condemned the “selective” publication of the AAIB’s preliminary report and described as “irresponsible” media reports that attributed blame to pilot error before the investigation was completed.

The Bench, headed by Justice Kant, had issued notices to the Union Government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) “for the limited purpose of ensuring a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation by a specialized agency”. However, the judges made it clear that they were not at this stage considering any part of the investigation being made public.