Air India Crash | AAIB Opposes Need For Supreme Court-Monitored Investigation, Says Its Probe As Per International Treaty

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has told the Supreme Court that there is no need for a court-monitored investigation into tinto the June 12, 2025 Air India AI171 crash in Ahmedabad, which claimed 260 lives, stating that its inquiry is being carried out in compliance with India's obligations under international aviation treaties.

According to the AAIB, the remaining investigation activities are expected to be completed within approximately six weeks, subject to pending external dependencies. Thereafter, a draft final report is expected to be ready around October 2026.

Opposing pleas for an independent judicial probe, the Bureau has contended in its counter affidavit that petitioners' prayers relating to compensation, regulatory reforms and criminal prosecution fall outside the scope of an accident investigation under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025.

“the statutory investigation is intended to be a fact-finding and safety-oriented process, directed towards identifying causes, contributing factors, systemic shortcomings, and remedial safety measures so as to prevent recurrence, and nothing else. It is not a mechanism for determining compensation, establishing criminal liability, or apportioning regulatory blame. Prayers (v), (vi) and (vii) in the Writ Petition, which seek compensation mechanisms, regulatory reforms and criminal prosecution respectively, fall entirely outside the scope and purpose of an aircraft accident investigation under the Rules, 2025”, it states.

The AAIB has told the Supreme Court that its investigation into the June 12, 2025 Air India AI171 crash is being carried out independently in accordance with India's statutory framework and international aviation standards. The AAIB has submitted that there was no justification for replacing the statutory investigation with a judicial or any other alternative mechanism.

The AAIB has said that it has completed 49 of the 66 mandatory investigative steps prescribed under ICAO standards and is presently in the analysis phase, with the remaining investigation expected to conclude within about six weeks.

The affidavit has been filed in response to three writ petitions, including one filed by Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal who was one of the pilots of the flight.

The affidavit further emphasised that the objective of an aircraft accident investigation under Indian law and ICAO Annex 13 is limited to improving aviation safety and preventing future accidents. It submitted that such investigations are not intended to determine criminal liability, apportion blame or decide compensation claims.

The AAIB has submitted that aircraft accident investigations are governed not only by Indian law but also by the Chicago Convention and ICAO Annex 13, which require participation by multiple countries depending on their connection with the aircraft.

According to the affidavit, India is the State of Occurrence, State of Registry and State of Operator, while the United States is the State of Design and State of Manufacture for the Boeing 787-8 involved in the crash. It further stated that the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has appointed an accredited representative, Boeing and GE Aerospace are participating as technical advisers, and teams from the UK AAIB and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada are also involved in accordance with the prescribed framework.

The affidavit states that aircraft accident investigations are highly technical exercises requiring expertise in aeronautical engineering, avionics, flight data recorder analysis, cockpit voice recorder interpretation, metallurgy, aviation medicine and human factors, making such investigations inherently complex and time-consuming.

Giving details of the progress made so far, the AAIB has stated that ICAO Annex 13 prescribes 66 mandatory investigative steps in a serious aircraft accident. Of these, it has already completed 49 steps. These include examination of the wreckage, scrutiny of maintenance and training records, recording statements of witnesses and personnel, stakeholder consultations, collection of ATC recordings and radar data, download and analysis of flight recorder data, preparation of the cockpit voice recorder transcript, examination and testing of aircraft components, and a psychological autopsy and evaluation as part of the human factors assessment.

The affidavit states that all technical testing has been completed. However, analysis of data retrieved from the Engine Monitoring Unit is still awaited and assessment of certain organisational factors is continuing. It adds that the investigation is presently in the analysis phase, with six specialist groups examining operational, technical, maintenance, human factors and organisational issues before drawing final conclusions.

The affidavit further explains that under ICAO Annex 13, the draft report must first be shared with the NTSB, as the accredited representative of the State of Design and Manufacture, for comments before it is finalised and published by the Director General of the AAIB.

The AAIB has relied on previous investigations to justify the projected timeline. It has stated that the present crash, involving 241 fatalities on board and victims from multiple countries, is substantially more complex than earlier accidents. It referred to investigations into Japan Airlines Flight 516, Jeju Air Flight 2216, the Potomac River mid-air collision, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 to submit that major international accident investigations routinely take one year or more to conclude.

The AAIB has stated that since its establishment in July 2012 it has completed 218 investigations, comprising 97 accident investigations, 120 serious incident investigations and one incident investigation. It submitted that there was no factual or legal basis for the Supreme Court to substitute the expert body with a judicially supervised investigative mechanism.

In November 2025, while issuing notice on the petition, the Court had orally observed that no blame could be attributed to Captain Sumeet Sabharwal. The Court had also criticised media reports attributing the crash to pilot error and reiterated that foreign reports would not influence the judicial process in India.

Case no. – Pushkar Raj Sabharwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Title – W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025