Pilot body moves HC seeking contempt action against DGCA

The contempt plea, filed under Section 2(b) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution, states that the two officials “have wilfully, intentionally and deliberately flouted the directions passed by High Court vide order dated February 24 and April 7”.

The matter has been listed for hearing on November 17. The FIP, representing about 6,000 pilots, had earlier challenged the 2019 FDTL framework before the Delhi High Court. During the hearing of that petition, the DGCA had filed an affidavit on February 19 this year, setting out the rollout schedule for CAR-2024, committing to implement 15 clauses by July 1, 2025, and the remaining seven clauses by November 1, 2025. The High Court accepted the undertaking and bound the regulator to these timelines on February 24, 2025, before disposing of the petition on April 7.

The present plea submits that “contrary to the above binding undertaking and orders of this court, without seeking leave of this court, the respondents and alleged contemnors have wilfully disobeyed the direction of this court as they have issued extensions/relaxations to airlines regarding implementation of CAR-2024, implementation of which was to be completed by November 1, 2025,” referring specifically to a relaxation issued on October 29, 2025.

The aviation watchdog, DGCA, had granted Air India a temporary relaxation in flight duty time limits for its two-pilot Boeing 787 Dreamliner operations on European routes, citing longer flight durations due to Pakistan’s airspace closure.

The petition further states that the DGCA had “deliberately and consciously approved airline’s FDTL schemes that were patently inconsistent with, and in deviation of, the FDTL CAR-2024 framework placed before and undertaken to this court to be implemented by November 1”.

Calling the regulator’s actions unjustified, the FIP says, “It is submitted that there is no shortage of pilots or crew in the sector… This indicates that capacity constraints were not a limiting factor… no exceptional circumstance exists that could warrant deviation from the committed implementation schedule.”

Flagging what it describes as a direct compromise with flight safety, the plea states, “The exemption directly endangers passenger safety… Allowing airlines to operate under diluted or non-compliant duty-time limits compromises cockpit alertness during critical phases of flight.”

The pilots’ body also told the court it had issued a representation on October 28, 2025, asking the DGCA to withdraw any extensions issued, but received no corrective action.

Alleging that the DGCA and the MoCA have acted “in contravention of the orders dated February 24 and April 7”, the FIP has urged the High Court to summon the two officials and “punish them in accordance with law”.