Delhi High Court seeks DGCA response on pilot bodies' plea against relaxation of fatigue rules

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s (DGCA) response to a contempt petition by the Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) and Indian Pilots Guild alleging that the air travel regulator had granted extensions or relaxations to airline carriers and approved fatigue schemes that were inconsistent with the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2024 framework [Federation of Indian Pilots Vs Faiz Ahmed Kidwai]..Justice Amit Sharma issued notice to DGCA and listed the plea for further hearing in April 2026. .The present contempt proceedings arose from long-standing litigation before the Delhi High Court concerning the implementation of flight and duty time limitation (FDTL) norms aimed at mitigating pilot fatigue and ensuring aviation safety.The issue traces back to a writ petition filed in 2012 seeking alignment of India’s fatigue-management framework with global safety standards. While dealing with the matter, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, by an order passed in February 2025, took on record an affidavit filed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) setting out a time-bound schedule for implementing the revised FDTL regime. As per the affidavit, 15 clauses were to be implemented by July 1, 2025, and the remaining seven clauses by November 1, 2025. The Court held that the respondent authorities were bound by these timelines.Subsequently, in April 2025, while disposing of connected writ petitions filed by pilot associations, the Court recorded that the process of notifying the CAR 2024 had commenced. Airlines were directed to submit their fatigue management schemes to the DGCA within three weeks, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in case of non-compliance..In November 2025, the FIP filed the present contempt petition alleging willful and deliberate non-compliance with the Court’s directions. The union contended that contrary to the assurances placed before the Court, the DGCA granted extensions or relaxations to airline carriers and approved fatigue schemes that were inconsistent with the CAR 2024 framework and the timelines undertaken.The petition referred to relaxations allegedly granted in October 2025 to multiple carriers, including Air India, IndiGo, SpiceJet, Alliance Air, SNV Aviation (Akasa Air), and cargo operators Blue Dart Aviation and QuikJet Cargo Airlines. It was alleged that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify such deviations and that the actions compromised cockpit alertness and passenger safety.The contempt petition first came up before Justice Amit Sharma on November 18 and was adjourned to December 15 to enable filing of additional documents. The central issue is whether DGCA’s actions amounted to deliberate deviation from judicially recorded commitments or a permissible exercise of statutory discretion..The counsel for the pilots unions submitted that several meetings between the DGCA, airlines and pilot associations were held under the aegis of the Court and that a broad consensus had emerged on the contents of the CAR as well as its phased implementation.According to FIP, while airlines had raised operational concerns such as pilot shortages, software changes and risks of flight cancellations, these issues were deliberated and factored into the phased rollout plan placed before the Court.The grievance raised in the contempt petition is that after securing the Court’s acceptance of the affidavit and timelines, the DGCA allegedly permitted airlines to selectively suspend or vary CAR provisions through individual communications without notice to pilot bodies and without seeking the Court’s permission..The counsel appearing for the DGCA opposed the contempt plea and argued that there was no specific judicial direction freezing the contents of the CAR as placed before the Court. It was submitted that while the regulator was bound by the implementation timelines, it retained statutory powers under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules to grant temporary variations or exemptions in appropriate cases.The DGCA further submitted that the variations granted were temporary, airline-specific and subject to periodic review and that the CAR itself continued to remain in force.It was also pointed out that the issue of variations granted to airlines was already a subject matter of separate proceedings before a Division Bench of the High Court..After hearing both sides, the Court on Tuesday observed that the question whether post-affidavit variations would amount to contempt required examination. The Court accordingly issued notice to the DGCA and directed it to file its response to the contempt petition..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.