Today, On 25th February, The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the exact moment the fuel switch on the Air India aircraft that crashed in Ahmedabad last June shifted from ‘run’ to ‘cut-off’,
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) which sought to obtain the precise moment when the fuel switch on the Air India plane that crashed in Ahmedabad in June of the previous year changed from ‘run’ to ‘cut-off.’
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted that the petitioner was also requesting the investigating authorities to divulge a comprehensive timeline of events, including when the aircraft’s engine experienced a ‘flameout.’
A flameout in a jet engine refers to the unintended cessation of the combustion process, leading the engine to stop generating thrust, which is necessary for propelling the plane.
The Bench remarked that the petitioner was asking the Court to revise the preliminary investigation report from July 2025.
However, the Court observed that such requests cannot be accommodated as it lacks the authority to alter investigation reports.
The Court also pointed out that the petitioner could have resorted to filing an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) to obtain the desired information.
The PIL was submitted by Suresh Chand Shrivastava, who contended that the preliminary report from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) omits crucial details regarding the crash.
The petitioner asserted his right to comprehensive information about when the fuel switches were turned off and whether this action was taken by the pilots. He also emphasized the need to know the timing of the flameout for each engine, suggesting that an engine surge could likely explain the reason for the flameouts.
Nonetheless, the Court stated that it is not equipped to intervene in the preliminary report of an ongoing investigation.
The Bench remarked,
“You are asking us the exact time from the ‘run’ to ‘cutoff’… What can be read down is the statute if it is in violation of the Constitution… The report says what it says. We are not experts in the field who can read down the report. This is only a preliminary report; we don’t have the expertise to get into the veracity of it,”
The Court concluded that although it acknowledges the concerns expressed by the petitioner regarding the crash, it cannot issue orders to alter the report or provide the specific details requested.