Delhi High Court seeks DGCA response on plea against pause in pilot fatigue rules

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation on a plea challenging its decision to keep the revised Flight Duty Time Limitation rules in abeyance following widespread disruption to airline operations, as reported by Bar and Bench.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed counsel appearing for the DGCA, Anajan Gosain, to obtain instructions on the matter by January 29. The Bench informed counsel that the court would take up the issue the next day and asked the regulator to be prepared with its stand.

During the hearing, the court observed that the rules must be implemented as they have a direct connection with passenger safety. The Bench stated that the regulations framed by the aviation regulator need to be enforced unless they are challenged or found to be flawed, adding that the rules had not been practically followed and therefore must be implemented.

The observations were made while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Sabari Roy Lenka and other petitioners challenging the DGCA’s decision to pause the implementation of the revised norms. The petitioners stated that the DGCA does not have the authority to keep the rules in abeyance and that they should be brought into force.

The DGCA had introduced the revised Flight Duty Time Limitation norms in 2025 to improve aviation safety by restricting pilot duty hours, increasing mandatory rest periods and reducing night landings, in line with global fatigue-risk management standards.

However, after the stricter norms came into effect, IndiGo, the country’s largest airline, struggled to comply, leading to large-scale flight cancellations and delays in December 2025. To limit passenger inconvenience, the DGCA temporarily placed the new rules in abeyance and granted exemptions to airlines until early February 2026 to allow time for adjustment.

The petitioners have also sought directions to restrain airlines from describing themselves as low-cost carriers, stating that there is no statutory definition, classification or legal recognition of a low-cost airline under the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Aircraft Rules, 1937 or any Civil Aviation Requirement.

In addition, the plea seeks action against IndiGo for allegedly failing to provide facilities such as free meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation to passengers affected by flight cancellations.

Advocates Shiv Prakash Pandey and Sharmistha Choudhary appeared on behalf of the petitioners.