Today, On 16th December, Delhi High Court has sought a response from the DGCA on a contempt plea by pilot unions alleging illegal relaxations to airlines and approval of fatigue management schemes contrary to CAR 2024 safety norms governing flight duty limits.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court called for a response from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regarding a contempt petition filed by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) and the Indian Pilots Guild.
They allege that the aviation regulator improperly granted extensions or relaxations to airlines and approved fatigue management schemes not in line with the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2024 framework.
Justice Amit Sharma has issued a notice to the DGCA, scheduling a further hearing for April 2026.
These contempt proceedings stem from protracted litigation before the Delhi High Court related to the implementation of flight and duty time limitation (FDTL) norms designed to reduce pilot fatigue and enhance aviation safety.
The origins of the issue trace back to a writ petition filed in 2012, aiming to align India’s fatigue-management system with international safety standards.
In February 2025, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju acknowledged an affidavit filed by the DGCA, which outlined a timeline for implementing the revised FDTL regime. This plan included 15 clauses to be enacted by July 1, 2025, and the remaining seven clauses by November 1, 2025, establishing clear deadlines for the relevant authorities.
Later, in April 2025, while concluding related writ petitions from pilot associations, the Court noted that the process to notify CAR 2024 had begun. Airlines were instructed to present their fatigue management schemes to the DGCA within three weeks, with the petitioners allowed to approach the appropriate forum if non-compliance occurred.
In November 2025, the FIP submitted the current contempt petition, claiming willful and intentional disregard for the Court’s orders.
The union argued that, contrary to the commitments made in court, the DGCA allowed extensions or relaxations for airline carriers and approved fatigue schemes that were not compliant with the CAR 2024 framework and the agreed timelines.
The petition highlighted alleged relaxations granted in October 2025 to various carriers, including Air India, IndiGo, SpiceJet, Alliance Air, SNV Aviation (Akasa Air), and cargo operators Blue Dart Aviation and QuikJet Cargo Airlines.
It was asserted that no exceptional circumstances justified these deviations and that such actions jeopardized cockpit alertness and passenger safety.
The contempt petition was initially presented to Justice Amit Sharma on November 18 and was postponed to December 15 for the filing of additional documents. The core issue revolves around whether the DGCA’s actions constituted a deliberate breach of judicial commitments or exercised statutory discretion appropriately.
Counsel for the pilots’ unions argued that multiple meetings had taken place between the DGCA, airlines, and pilot associations under the Court’s guidance, leading to a broad consensus on the contents of the CAR and its phased implementation.
The FIP noted that, while airlines raised operational concerns such as pilot shortages and software updates that might risk flight cancellations, these issues were discussed and incorporated into the phased rollout plan validated by the Court.
The complaint in the contempt petition stated that following the Court’s endorsement of the affidavit and timelines, the DGCA reportedly allowed airlines to selectively alter CAR provisions through individual notices without consulting pilot bodies or seeking the Court’s permission.
In response, the DGCA’s counsel opposed the contempt plea, asserting that no specific judicial order had barred the modification of the CAR as presented to the Court.
They stressed that while the regulator must adhere to implementation timelines, it retains statutory authority under the Aircraft Act, 1934, and the Aircraft Rules to grant temporary variations or exemptions when warranted.
ALSO READ: Air India Crash| We Need Justice: Pilot’s Father Moves Supreme Court for Judicial Inquiry
The DGCA further claimed that the variations were temporary, specific to each airline, and subject to regular review, emphasizing that the CAR itself remained effective.
It was also highlighted that the question of variances granted to airlines was already under separate review by a Division Bench of the High Court.
After considering both parties, the Court stated that the issue of whether post-affidavit variations could be deemed contempt required further investigation. Consequently, it issued a notice to the DGCA and directed it to respond to the contempt petition.
Click Here to Read More On IndiGo