Supreme Court Grants Centre Three Weeks To Update On Ahmedabad Air Disaster Probe

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court allowed the Union government a period of three weeks to submit an update on the investigation into the Ahmedabad air disaster that resulted in 260 fatalities.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering several petitions, including one moved by the father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was the Pilot-in-Command of Air India flight AI-171 that went down on 12 June 2025.

The plea called for an independent inquiry supervised by the court into the incident.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), informed the court that the probe being conducted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) was nearing completion. He stated that the investigation was in its concluding phase and that a report would shortly be finalised.

The law officer also indicated that certain parts of the aircraft had gone overseas for specialised technical examination.

Mehta further told the court that, as the deceased included nationals of different countries, the inquiry proceeded in accordance with international norms.

After recording these submissions, the Bench, headed by the CJI, granted the government three weeks to complete the remaining formalities. It directed the submission of the final report in a sealed cover along with a sworn statement setting out the procedure followed during the investigation.

The court specifically asked the authorities to explain the protocol they followed and directed them to file a status update before the next hearing.

Concerns Raised Over Boeing 787 Safety

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the NGO Safety Matters Foundation, argued that pilot bodies had raised alarms about the safety of Boeing 787 aircraft. He said they had sought the grounding of such planes until a comprehensive inspection took place.

He contended that the collective view of pilots’ associations was that there were concerns relating to the Boeing 787 and that neither the government nor the AAIB had addressed the representations made on the issue.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Captain Sabharwal’s father, renewed the request for a court-monitored investigation. He submitted that in earlier aviation accidents abroad, preliminary findings had blamed pilots, but later investigations had uncovered mechanical or design-related flaws.

He cited previous crashes involving Boeing 737 aircraft, stating that pilots initially faced blame before United States regulators later identified technical defects.

According to him, the officials did not immediately disclose significant documents in those cases.

Describing the Ahmedabad crash as deeply unfortunate, the Bench urged restraint in attributing fault to any specific aircraft type or airline in the absence of definitive conclusions.

The court remarked that parties must exercise caution before making adverse observations about any particular aircraft brand, noting that the industry had once regarded Dreamliners as among the finest in service.

Referring to recent press coverage concerning an alleged fuel switch issue on another Dreamliner operating between London and Delhi, the Bench observed that early reports had subsequently been clarified by official sources.

While acknowledging the gravity of the Ahmedabad incident, the court urged all parties to exercise prudence and refrain from commenting on any airline until investigators firmly establish the facts.