A pilots’ union told the Delhi High Court that DGCA ignored fatigue-rule timelines weeks before Indigo’s mass cancellations. The plea warned that non-compliance “directly endanger passenger safety,” foreshadowing the crisis.
New Delhi: A contempt of court petition filed by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) in November appears to have predicted the aviation crisis that India witnessed in early December, when thousands of Indigo flights were cancelled due to the airline’s struggle to follow new pilot fatigue management rules.
The petition, filed in the matter titled Federation of Indian Pilots Vs Faiz Ahmad Kidwai before the Delhi High Court, suggested that the regulator had failed to strictly enforce the updated rules despite clear timelines fixed earlier.
ALSO READ: IndiGo Flight Fiasco 2025: 1,000+ Cancellations Leave Flyers Furious Across India
Since December 2, large-scale cancellations were reported across Indigo’s network. The airline was unable to adjust its schedule to comply with the revised Flight and Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) notified in 2024, even though airlines were given an 18-month period to prepare for the new standards.
The petition filed weeks earlier by FIP had already warned that the implementation of these safety rules had been delayed because the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) was not being firm with airlines.
According to the pilots’ union, these ongoing delays in implementing India’s new fatigue norms “directly endanger passenger safety.”
The petition said the deviations highlighted by pilots were not sudden but part of a continued pattern that the Court had already cautioned against.
The union accused DGCA and a senior Ministry of Civil Aviation official of “willfully, intentionally and deliberately” ignoring the High Court’s earlier directions.
The directions referred to by the union came from a long-pending 2012 case seeking globally aligned fatigue-mitigation norms for Indian pilots. In February 2025, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju had recorded DGCA’s affidavit confirming the deadlines for implementing the revised FDTL system.
According to the affidavit,
“15 Clauses… shall be implemented by 01.07.2025 while the remaining 7 Clauses… will be rolled out implemented on or before 01.11.2025.”
The Court held that authorities were bound to follow the timelines they themselves placed on record.
Two months later, in April 2025, while disposing of related writ petitions filed by pilot bodies, the Court noted that the process to notify the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2024 had already begun. Airlines were instructed to submit their fatigue schemes quickly, within three weeks, to the DGCA.
The Court further observed that
“in the event of any non compliance, the Petitioners (various pilot unions) shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.”
What the contempt petition claims happened afterwards
In its contempt plea, FIP stated that DGCA later granted “extensions or relaxations to airlines regarding implementation of CAR 2024,” contrary to what the regulator had told the Court earlier.
The petition said DGCA approved fatigue schemes submitted by airlines even though they were
“patently inconsistent with, and in deviation of, the FDTL CAR 2024 framework placed before and undertaken to this Hon’ble Court to be implemented by 01.11.2025.”
It pointed to relaxations granted in October to several carriers including Air India, Indigo, SpiceJet, Alliance Air, SNV Aviation (Akasa Air), Blue Dart Aviation and QuikJet Cargo Airlines.
The union also placed charts before the Court to show the alleged variations in the fatigue schemes approved for Air India and Indigo. FIP added that the Indian aviation sector does not have a shortage of pilots or crew, and that all operators were informed about the revised rules as early as January 2024.
These timelines, it said, were again reaffirmed in February 2025. According to the petition,
“No exceptional circumstance exists that could warrant deviation from the committed implementation schedule.”
It added that the regulator’s decisions affect cockpit alertness during crucial phases of flight, expose passengers and crew to avoidable risks, and defeat the purpose of the updated safety framework.
Why the timing of the petition matters
The allegations made by the pilots’ union were placed before the Court before any public signs of operational stress appeared. The petition therefore reads more like a warning document than a reaction to disruptions.
It focused entirely on the enforcement concerns and alleged that DGCA’s conduct amounted to “willful non-compliance” of the Court’s binding directions.
The FIP requested the Court to issue notice of civil contempt, punish officials responsible, and direct strict implementation of previous orders both “in letter and in spirit.”
The matter returns to Court
The contempt case first came up before Justice Amit Sharma on November 18. The petitioner requested time to submit additional documents, and the Court adjourned the matter to December 15.
The order recorded:
“At request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in order to enable her to place on record additional documents in support of the present petition, re notify on 15.12.2025.”
The key question is still pending before the Bench
The main question before the Court now is whether the regulator’s actions were a deliberate attempt to avoid complying with judicially recorded commitments, as the FIP claims, or whether DGCA was merely exercising its statutory discretion while granting extensions.
Whatever the outcome, the petition stands as a document that outlined safety risks and regulatory lapses before India’s airline system began experiencing the very consequences it described.
The plea was filed through APJ-SLG Law Offices and the pilots’ union was represented by advocates Awantika Manohar, Joseph Pookkatt, Nilesh Sharma and Dhawesh Pahuja.
Case Title:
Federation of Indian pilots Vs Faiz Ahmad Kidwai
Click Here to Read More On IndiGo
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
