SC calls selective release of AI crash report ‘irresponsible’
The Supreme Court criticized the selective release of the preliminary Air India crash report, calling it “irresponsible” and urging confidentiality. Advocates demanded a fair probe, citing potential conflicts of interest and incomplete data from flight recorders impacting transparency and public safety
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday termed as “unfortunate and irresponsible” the selective publication of a preliminary report on the June 12 Air India crash, which outlined lapses on the part of pilots and paved the way for a “media narrative”.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which issued notices to the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on the aspect of an independent, fair and expeditious probe of the crash, said an element of privacy and dignity of families of victims was also involved.
It took note of certain aspects of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) preliminary report issued on July 12 and said “piecemeal and selective” publication of the findings, which led to building of a media narrative, was “unfortunate and irresponsible”. “There should be complete confidentiality of reports of this nature till the inquiry is complete. There is an element of privacy and dignity of the victims involved. That’s why we should wait for the final report,” the bench observed.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO ‘Safety Matters Foundation’, earlier said one line of the preliminary report, which blamed the pilots for the crash, led to the building of a narrative in the media across the world.
“Unless people know the cause of the accident, they are in danger, as no preventive steps can be taken till then. It’s been over 100 days since the crash, and we still don’t know the reason,” Bhushan said.
He alleged in the probe panel constituted after the crash that three of the five members were from the aviation regulator, and there could be an issue of conflict of interest. “There are three interested parties–the manufacturer of aircraft, the airline, and the DGCA, and involvement of any member of these three parties will be a conflict of interest. How can officers of the very organisation whose role is likely to be examined be part of the committee probing the incident?” Bhushan said.
He said revealing information from the flight data recorder of the airplane would “clear the air” over the cause of the accident. The bench said while the demand for free, fair and independent inquiry was understandable, the demand for information from the flight data recorder was “questionable”. While cautioning that releasing particular information might be exploited by rival airlines, the bench suggested such information should not be released prematurely.
“We should not release the information piecemeal and maintain utmost confidentiality till the regular inquiry is taken to its logical conclusion. Then only can we say what the actual reason was,” Justice Kant said.
Bhushan referred to a podcast, which claimed to have examined all aspects of the incident, and said it concluded that it was not a case of the pilot’s negligence. “Media reporting from one isolated line from the preliminary report has actually distorted the larger picture,” he submitted, and added that the probe panel could be headed by a judicial person.
When the bench felt an independent inquiry by domain experts was a better option, Bhushan said a retired judge could head the panel to oversee the inquiry. The top court said such inquiries should happen promptly to quell rumours and speculations and avoid the selective leakage of information to the media, social media, and other forms of media.
Bhushan reiterated about the flight data recorder, but the bench pointed out the possibility of several “parallel theories” if information was released. Bhushan said theories would anyway come even after the final report, and there was no way to prevent it.
The plea has been filed by an aviation safety NGO led by Captain Amit Singh, alleging that the official probe violates citizens’ fundamental rights to life, equality, and access to truthful information.
The plea says the AAIB issued its preliminary report on July 12, attributing the accident to “fuel cutoff switches” being moved from “run” to “cutoff”, effectively suggesting a pilot error.
It is alleged that the report withheld critical information, including the full Digital Flight Data Recorder output, complete Cockpit Voice Recorder transcripts with time stamps, and Electronic Aircraft Fault Recording data.
According to the plea, these are indispensable for a transparent and objective understanding of the disaster. The PIL further criticises the report for downplaying systemic anomalies, such as fuel-switch defects, electrical faults, Ram Air Turbine deployment, and electrical disturbances, and for prematurely attributing the crash to a pilot error.
The plea says a “selective and biased” inquiry into a disaster of this magnitude violates Article 21 of the Constitution by compromising citizens’ right to life, safety, and dignity, is arbitrary and contrary to Article 14, and suppresses truthful information in breach of Article 19(1)(a).
On June 12, Air India’s Boeing 787-8 aircraft operating flight AI171 en route to London’s Gatwick airport crashed into a medical hostel complex shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad, killing 265 people, including 241 passengers and crew on board.
Among the 241 dead were 169 Indians, 52 Britons, seven Portuguese nationals, one Canadian, and 12 crew members. The lone survivor of the crash was Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a British national.
