Indigo crisis: Did a pilot association's plea in Delhi HC warn of India's aviation trouble before it unfolded?

A contempt of court petition filed by a pilots' union before the Delhi High Court in November this year appears to have anticipated the turbulence that later unfolded across India’s airline network with the mass cancellation of Indigo flights [Federation of Indian pilots Vs Faiz Ahmad Kidwai]..Since December 2, thousands of Indigo flights have reportedly been cancelled after the airline was unable to adjust its operations to comply with new pilot fatigue management rules despite an 18-month window to implement the rules notified in 2024.Meanwhile, in its contempt plea filed last month, the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) had flagged that the implementation of these guidelines has lagged behind because India's aviation watchdog was not being strict with enforcing timelines for compliance by airline carriers. The plea said that such continuing deviations from India’s revised fatigue management regime “directly endanger passenger safety."A contempt plea placed this warning on record weeks before scheduling stress and rostering constraints became a public flashpoint.The union accused the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and a senior Civil Aviation Ministry official of having “willfully, intentionally and deliberately" flouted the directions passed by the High Court. The directions in question were issued by the Court while dealing with a 2012 plea that sought to ensure that India's fatigue-mitigation norms aligned with global safety practice..In February 2025, while dealing with the 2012 plea, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju took note of DGCA’s affidavit on the time-bound implementation of the revised Flight and Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) schemes.“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 affidavit said. The Court held that the respondents-authorities are bound by the timelines reflected in that affidavit..Two months later, while disposing of writ petitions filed by pilot associations, the Court recorded in its April ruling that the process of notifying the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2024 has already been set into motion.Airlines were directed to submit their fatigue schemes expeditiously and not later than three weeks to the DGCA.The Court added 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 plea alleges happened thereafter.In its contempt plea filed last month, FIP contended that DGCA later granted "extensions or relaxations to airlines regarding implementation of CAR 2024” contrary to assurances given in Court. The petition flagged DGCA's decisions to approve fatigue schemes submitted by airline carriers 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.” In this regard, the FIP also referred to relaxations or extensions of time given by DGCA to various carriers in October, including Air India, Spice Jet, Alliance Air, SNV Aviation (which owns Akasa Air) and cargo airlines Blue Dart Aviation and QuikJet Cargo Airlines. Further, a chart in the affidavit also outlined alleged variations in the approved flight crew-flight and duty time limitation schemes of Air India and Indigo airlines. .The pilots union added that there is no shortage of pilots or crew in the sector and that operators were duly informed of the revised FDTL framework as early as January 2024, and the implementation timeline was reaffirmed in February 2025"No exceptional circumstance exists that could warrant deviation from the committed implementation schedule," the plea said. It also linked the alleged deviations to safety outcomes. As per the plea, the DGCA’s actions compromise cockpit alertness during critical phases of flight, thereby exposing passengers and crew to avoidable safety hazards and undermining the very purpose of the revised safety regime..The timeline that makes the filing significant.These allegations were placed before the Court before operational stress emerged publicly earlier this month. That timing gives the petition the quality of a warning document rather than a reaction to visible disruption. Its content focused squarely on enforcement concerns and it stated that DGCA’s conduct amounted "willful non-compliance” of binding judicial orders. The union had urged the Court to issue notice of civil contempt, punish the errant parties in accordance with law, and direct strict compliance with earlier court directions both in letter and in spirit..The matter returns to Court.The contempt case first came up before Justice Amit Sharma on November 18, when the matter was adjourned for further hearing till December 15 at the request of the FIP."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 Court's order records..The unresolved question before the Bench.As per the plea, the implementation of fatigue rules was not only delayed but altered through extensions or relaxations after the High Court had declared the policy dispute closed. For the Court, the question now is whether the regulator’s approach amounted to a deliberate and conscious deviation from a judicially recorded commitment as alleged by the FIP or if it was an exercise of valid statutory discretion. Either way, the petition stands as a document that sets out a risk narrative before the aviation sector began to visibly absorb the consequences it described..The plea was filed through APJ- SLG Law Offices and the petitioner was represented by advocates Awantika Manohar, Joseph Pookkatt, Nilesh Sharma and Dhawesh Pahuja..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.