The Delhi High Court sought DGCA’s response to a plea challenging the temporary suspension of new Flight Duty Time Limitation rules after major airline disruptions. A Bench led by Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia sought instructions today.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court requested the stance of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regarding a plea that challenges its decision to temporarily suspend the new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules following significant disruptions to airline operations.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia instructed DGCA’s counsel, Anajan Gosain, to obtain instructions on the matter by tomorrow (January 29).
The Bench stated,
“We will have it tomorrow. Please get your instructions,”
During the proceedings, the Court emphasized that the implementation of these rules is crucial as they are directly related to passenger safety.
The Court remarked,
“It has a direct link with the safety of the passengers… The regulator has provided some regulations. Unless it is challenged or there is some flaw, they need to enforce it. They have not been practically followed… They must be implemented,”
These observations arose while addressing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Sabari Roy Lenka and other litigants, who are contesting the DGCA’s decision to keep the rules in abeyance.
The petitioners argue that the DGCA lacks the authority to suspend the rules, insisting that they should be enforced.
The revised norms, introduced by the DGCA in 2025, aim to enhance safety by limiting pilot duty hours, extending rest periods, and minimizing night landings, in alignment with global fatigue-risk standards.
However, when these stricter regulations came into effect, IndiGo, the largest airline in India, faced challenges in compliance, leading to widespread flight cancellations and delays in December 2025. To mitigate passenger inconvenience, the DGCA temporarily suspended the new FDTL rules and granted exemptions until early February 2026 while airlines adjusted.
The petitioners are also seeking directions to prevent airlines from labeling themselves as low-cost, arguing that there is no legislative definition, classification, or legal recognition of a “Low-Cost Airline” under the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Aircraft Rules, 1937, or any Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR).
Additionally, they have requested actions against IndiGo for not providing amenities such as free meals, refreshments, and hotel accommodations during flight cancellations.
Advocates Shiv Prakash Pandey and Sharmistha Choudhary represented the petitioners in the case.