The recent Air India AI-171 crash near Ahmedabad has reignited public concern about aviation safety in India, exposing chronic shortcomings in regulatory oversight, institutional design, and legal frameworks.
While the aviation sector has grown rapidly in both passenger volume and infrastructure, the safety ecosystem has not kept pace, as evidenced by a troubling series of crashes over the past two decades and a regulatory response that has remained largely reactive.
Legacy Of Systemic Failures
India has witnessed several major aviation tragedies in recent memory.
The Kozhikode crash of 2020, the Mangalore runway overshoot in 2010, and now the AI-171 crash each highlight recurring operational failures, ranging from communication lapses and pilot error to poor weather preparedness and inadequate maintenance standards.
These incidents reflect not isolated misfortunes, but systemic gaps in institutional capacity and oversight.
The AI-171 incident, in particular, revealed weaknesses in real-time flight monitoring, outdated equipment, and regulatory inertia. Early investigations pointed to mechanical issues and delayed decision-making, both of which could have been mitigated through better compliance with global safety norms.
DGCA: The Regulatory Bottleneck
At the heart of India’s aviation safety conundrum lies the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the country’s primary regulator.
Unlike the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the DGCA is not an autonomous body. Operating under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, its functioning is often hampered by bureaucratic interference, limited resources, and inadequate technical staffing.
Though the DGCA is empowered under Section 4A of the Aircraft Act, 1934, it lacks statutory autonomy comparable to regulators like the TRAI or IRDAI.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in its 2022 report flagged the DGCA for superficial audits, staff shortages, and outdated oversight mechanisms.
Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) issued by the DGCA, though technically binding, often lack precision, transparency, or timely updates. Moreover, there is no centralized public database of safety audits, thereby undermining transparency and accountability.
Legislative Gaps & Consumer Risk
From a legal standpoint, the regulatory regime fails to mandate adoption of all ICAO-recommended safety features.
Airlines are merely required to adhere to minimum manufacturer delivery standards, which frequently omit optional safety equipment like enhanced terrain warning systems or predictive maintenance tools. This allows safety to become a discretionary expense rather than a mandated norm.
The absence of legal requirements to disclose onboard safety configurations to consumers also means that passengers are denied an informed choice, raising constitutional concerns under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal safety.
The judiciary has interpreted this provision expansively to include safety in public transport systems. Thus, omission of critical safety technology could potentially amount to a failure by the State to protect fundamental rights.
Judicial Oversight
In light of persistent executive inaction, the Indian judiciary has increasingly taken on a quasi-regulatory role in the aviation sector.
Following the AI-171 crash, several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed demanding stricter enforcement of safety norms.
In Air Safety NGO v. DGCA, the Delhi High Court ordered the DGCA to publicly disclose internal safety audits and compliance records with ICAO standards, emphasizing the constitutional right to information and safe travel.
This judicial intervention follows a broader jurisprudential trend where courts enforce policy compliance in public safety domains. However, judges themselves have acknowledged the limitations of judicial action and emphasized the urgent need for statutory reforms.
International Standards & India’s Lagging Compliance
India is a signatory to the Chicago Convention, 1944, and is bound by the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), including Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) and Annex 13 (Accident Investigation).
However, ICAO’s 2023 audit revealed major deficiencies in India’s adherence, awarding the country a subpar Effective Implementation (EI) score of 58.2%, compared to the global average of 70%.
The audit highlighted the DGCA’s failure to update regulations in line with ICAO amendments, particularly in airworthiness oversight and accident investigation protocols.
Critically, India continues to allow the DGCA to conduct accident probes, violating ICAO Annex 13, which mandates that investigation be independent of the regulator and the operator. This conflict of interest undermines the credibility of India’s crash investigations on the international stage.
The Way Forward
The AI-171 crash is more than just a tragic event; it is a call to overhaul India’s aviation safety regime.
India must legislate a comprehensive Civil Aviation Safety Code that harmonizes CARs with ICAO SARPs, mandates disclosure of safety standards to consumers, and establishes an independent National Aviation Safety Board with investigation and enforcement authority free from ministerial control.
Only then can India align with global best practices and fulfill its constitutional duty to protect the lives of its citizens.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
