Delhi High Court seeks DGCA reply on pilots’ contempt plea over fatigue rule relaxations

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation on a contempt petition filed by the Federation of Indian Pilots and the Indian Pilots Guild alleging that the aviation regulator granted extensions or relaxations to airline carriers and approved fatigue management schemes that were inconsistent with the Civil Aviation Requirement 2024 framework, as per a report by Bar and Bench.

Justice Amit Sharma issued notice to the DGCA and listed the matter for further hearing in April 2026. The contempt proceedings stem from long-running litigation before the High Court concerning the implementation of flight and duty time limitation norms intended to address pilot fatigue and enhance aviation safety. The dispute traces its origin to a writ petition filed in 2012 seeking alignment of India’s fatigue management framework with global safety standards.

In February 2025, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, while dealing with the matter, took on record an affidavit filed by the DGCA outlining a time-bound schedule for implementing the revised FDTL regime. Under the affidavit, 15 clauses were to be implemented by July 1, 2025, and the remaining seven clauses by November 1, 2025, with the Court holding that the respondent authorities were bound by the timelines.

Subsequently, in April 2025, while disposing of connected writ petitions filed by pilot associations, the Court recorded that the process of notifying CAR 2024 had commenced and directed airlines to submit their fatigue management schemes to the DGCA within three weeks, while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in the event of non-compliance.

In November 2025, the Federation of Indian Pilots filed the present contempt petition alleging wilful and deliberate non-compliance with the Court’s directions. The unions contended that despite assurances placed before the Court, the DGCA granted extensions or relaxations to airline operators and approved fatigue schemes that departed from the CAR 2024 framework and the timelines undertaken. The petition referred to relaxations allegedly granted in October 2025 to carriers including Air India, IndiGo, SpiceJet, Alliance Air, SNV Aviation or Akasa Air, as well as cargo operators Blue Dart Aviation and QuikJet Cargo Airlines.

According to the petitioners, no exceptional circumstances existed to justify such deviations and the relaxations undermined cockpit alertness and passenger safety. The contempt plea first came up before Justice Amit Sharma on November 18 and was adjourned to December 15 to allow the filing of additional documents.

The central question before the Court is whether the DGCA’s actions amounted to a deliberate departure from commitments recorded before the judiciary or constituted a permissible exercise of statutory discretion. Counsel for the pilot unions informed the Court that multiple meetings between the DGCA, airlines and pilot associations had been held under the aegis of the Court, during which a broad consensus was reached on the contents of the CAR and its phased implementation.

The unions stated that operational concerns raised by airlines, including pilot shortages, software changes and the risk of flight cancellations, were discussed and incorporated into the phased rollout plan placed before the Court. The grievance raised was that after securing judicial acceptance of the affidavit and timelines, the DGCA allegedly allowed airlines to selectively suspend or vary CAR provisions through individual communications without notice to pilot bodies and without seeking the Court’s permission.

Opposing the contempt plea, counsel for the DGCA submitted that there was no specific judicial direction freezing the contents of the CAR as placed before the Court and stated that while the regulator was bound by the implementation timelines, it retained statutory powers under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules to grant temporary variations or exemptions in appropriate cases. The DGCA further informed the Court that the variations granted were temporary, airline-specific and subject to periodic review, while the CAR continued to remain in force.

It was also pointed out that the issue of variations granted to airlines was already pending consideration in separate proceedings before a Division Bench of the High Court. After hearing both sides, the Court observed that the question of whether post-affidavit variations amounted to contempt required examination and accordingly directed the DGCA to file its response to the petition.