Today, On 16th October, Pushkaraj Sabharwal, the pilot’s father, moved the Supreme Court seeking a judicial inquiry into the tragic Air India crash involving his son, late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was the Pilot-in-Command of the ill-fated Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner.
The father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, who was the Pilot-in-Command of the ill-fated Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, has approached the Supreme Court of India.
He is requesting the formation of a judicially monitored committee, led by a retired judge, with independent aviation experts as members, to conduct a comprehensive and transparent investigation into the crash.
Pushkaraj Sabharwal, the petitioner, contends that the investigation ordered by the Ministry of Aviation and the preliminary report dated June 15, 2025, are defective and contain significant flaws.
He argues that the report implausibly attributes the cause of the crash to pilot error, while neglecting other potential systemic issues that warrant independent examination.
The plea states,
“An incomplete and prejudiced inquiry, without identification of the exact cause of the accident, endangers the lives of future passengers and undermines aviation safety at large, causing a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,”
This petition has also been submitted by a society representing over 6,000 professional pilots, including the late Capt.
Sabharwal and Co-Pilot Captain Clive Kunder, both esteemed members with extensive flying experience. Captain Sabharwal had a flawless career spanning over 30 years, with 15,638 hours of incident-free flying, including 8,596 hours on the Boeing 787-8, without any reported incidents.
The petitioner claims that the preliminary investigation into the crash is deeply flawed. Instead of conducting a thorough technical inquiry, the investigation team appears to have focused primarily on the deceased pilots, who cannot defend themselves, while failing to investigate other more plausible technical and procedural factors that may have contributed to the incident.
The petition emphasizes,
“The current approach of the investigation has resulted in a failure to adequately examine, or rule out, other more plausible technical and procedural factors relating to the Boeing that could have contributed to the tragic incident,”
It argues that selective disclosures against crew members who are unable to defend themselves obstruct the discovery of the root cause and jeopardize future flight safety, calling for an unbiased judicial review.
The five-member investigation team assigned to the crash is deemed illegal and void, as it violates the fundamental principle of natural justice, i.e., nemo judex in causa sua, which asserts that no one should be a judge in their own cause.
“The team is dominated by officers from DGCA, the State aviation authorities whose procedures, oversight, and possible lapses are directly implicated in the investigation. Moreover, the officers are placed under the control of the DG, AAIB, thereby creating a situation where the very entities responsible for regulating and overseeing civil aviation are effectively investigating themselves.”
The plea highlights that the swift formation of the investigation team, with overlapping roles of investigators and supervisory officers from the same State entities, has led to a biased inquiry incapable of objectively determining the true cause of the crash, undermining the credibility and integrity of the investigation, and eroding public trust in aviation safety.
Last month, the Supreme Court issued a notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Safety Matters Foundation, which seeks an independent, court-monitored investigation into the crash of Air India Flight AI171 that resulted in the deaths of 260 individuals on June 12, 2025.
The Bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh, heard arguments questioning the impartiality and transparency of the probe conducted by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB).
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued that over 100 days post-crash, the AAIB had only published a preliminary report attributing the incident to pilot error due to fuel cutoff switches being moved from RUN to CUTOFF.
Bhushan emphasized that critical data, such as the full Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR), Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcripts with timestamps, and Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording (EAFR) data, have been withheld, hindering meaningful analysis of the crash.
He also raised concerns about conflicts of interest, noting that three of the five members of the investigating team are current DGCA officials, whose organization’s actions may be scrutinized in the inquiry. He called for a fully independent investigation by an expert body, supervised by the Court to ensure fairness and transparency.
The Court has directed that the investigation must be free, impartial, independent, and expedited by a suitably expert team.
The Bench stressed that the inquiry should be completed promptly, ensuring accurate conclusions while preventing speculation and misinformation.
This hearing marks a significant step in addressing issues of accountability, technical scrutiny, and transparency following one of India’s deadliest aviation accidents, which has garnered substantial public and media attention.
The petition, filed by the Safety Matters Foundation, an NGO dedicated to promoting aviation safety, raises serious concerns regarding selective and incomplete disclosures made by the AAIB in its preliminary report. The ill-fated Dreamliner, operating as Air India Flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed shortly after takeoff on June 12, 2025, resulting in the deaths of 229 passengers, 12 crew members, and 19 individuals on the ground.
The aircraft, manufactured in 2013 and powered by GEnx-1B70 engines, held a valid Airworthiness Review Certificate at the time of the accident. While the AAIB released its preliminary report on July 12, 2025, attributing the crash to the sudden transition of both fuel cutoff switches from RUN to CUTOFF, the petitioner claims that the report is filled with gaps.
Sensitive technical information had already been leaked to the Wall Street Journal before the report’s release, raising concerns about selective disclosures and compromised integrity.
Case Title: Pushkaraj Sabharwal and Anr. vs. Union of India and Others