Delhi HC questions DGCA’s indefinite rollback of fatigue norm

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the DGCA’s decision to keep parts of the revised Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) framework in abeyance, following disruption to airline operations.

The Bench issued notice to the Centre, the aviation regulator and IndiGo, directing them to file their responses to the PIL within two weeks.

Addressing the court, the DGCA counsel submitted that weekly rest for pilots remained inviolable and continued to be governed by the applicable Civil Aviation Requirements. The regulator made it clear that this requirement had neither been withdrawn nor relaxed for any airline and remained fully operational. The counsel emphasised that the safety safeguard could not be interfered with under any circumstances.

The court, however, sought an explanation for the DGCA’s decision to roll back a newly introduced provision that stated that leave could not be substituted in place of weekly rest. The Bench asked the regulator to place on record the reasoning behind withdrawing this norm with immediate effect and without fixing any sunset clause.

The DGCA informed the court that the revised FDTL norms had come into force on November 1, 2025, and the regulator was closely monitoring their implementation.

According to the submissions, the decision to withdraw the non-substitution clause was taken after an internal audit and following representations from airlines, which flagged issues arising from pilots clubbing leave and weekly off days. It was clarified that even after the December 5 decision, weekly rest continued to be mandatory, while leave remained a contractual issue governed by agreements between pilots and airlines.

The regulator also reiterated that a separate and limited relaxation from night duty norms was granted to IndiGo through another communication issued on December 5, and that this exemption was valid only till February 10. Beyond this date, IndiGo would be required to fully comply with the applicable night operation restrictions.

The Bench, however, expressed concern over the asymmetry in the two decisions taken on the same day. It noted that while the relaxation on night duty norms was explicitly time-bound, the withdrawal of the non-substitution clause carried no deadline and applied across all airlines.

The judges observed that if both decisions were prompted by operational disruption, there was no explanation as to why one relaxation was temporary, while the other was left open-ended.

The court remarked that the core grievance appeared to be the mixing of leave with weekly rest, a safeguard intended to prevent pilot fatigue, and questioned why this protection was withdrawn indefinitely due to difficulties faced by a single airline.

The Bench asked the DGCA to justify the continued operation of the rollback and to explain its broader impact on aviation safety.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court had cautioned that concerns relating to public safety arising from non-implementation of fatigue management norms could not be ignored or trivialised. The petitioners, Sabari Roy Lenka, Aman Monga and Kiran Singh, have alleged that the relaxations were extended selectively to IndiGo and were prima facie arbitrary and mala fide.

The plea further contended that the DGCA, under its obligations to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, was required to uniformly enforce fatigue regulations, prevent unsafe roster practices, ensure adequate staffing levels, assess airline preparedness and ground non-compliant schedules.

The petitioners have alleged that the regulator has consistently failed to enforce this framework, compromising safety standards.

The court also took note of the petitioners’ additional prayers seeking action against IndiGo for alleged failure to provide statutory facilities such as meals, refreshments and hotel accommodation to passengers affected by cancellations, and questioning the continued use of the “low-cost airline” label in the absence of any legal recognition under aviation laws.

The matter is scheduled to be taken up again after four weeks.