The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has informed the Supreme Court that there is no legal necessity for a court-monitored investigation into the Air India Flight AI171 crash that occurred near Ahmedabad on June 12, 2025.
In a detailed counter affidavit, the Bureau said the ongoing investigation is being carried out under India's statutory framework and international aviation rules, adding that the draft final report is expected to be ready by October after the remaining investigative work is completed.
The affidavit was filed in response to petitions seeking an independent judicial inquiry into the crash, which claimed 260 lives.
Background of the Case
The petitions before the Supreme Court questioned the transparency and independence of the AAIB's investigation following the fatal crash of Air India Flight AI171 shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad. Among the petitioners are Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, and others seeking a court-monitored probe.
During earlier hearings, the Supreme Court expressed concern over selective leaks from the preliminary investigation report, observing that confidential material should not have entered the public domain before completion of the inquiry. The Bench also cautioned against media reports that appeared to attribute the accident to pilot error before the investigation had concluded.
While issuing notice in November 2025, the Court had orally observed that no blame could be attached to Captain Sumeet Sabharwal at that stage and stressed that foreign media reports would not influence judicial proceedings in India.
AAIB Defends Ongoing Investigation
In its affidavit, the AAIB told the Court that aircraft accident investigations are governed by a comprehensive legal framework comprising the Chicago Convention, ICAO Annex 13, the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, and the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025.
The Bureau argued that these provisions exclusively empower it to investigate aircraft accidents, leaving no legal basis for establishing a parallel judicial investigation.
It further stated that the inquiry is a safety-oriented exercise aimed at identifying the causes of the accident and preventing similar incidents in the future, rather than fixing criminal liability or determining compensation.
"The statutory investigation is intended to be a fact-finding and safety-oriented process... It is not a mechanism for determining compensation, establishing criminal liability, or apportioning regulatory blame," the affidavit states.
Court Told Investigation Is in Final Analysis Phase
According to the AAIB, 49 of the 66 mandatory investigative steps prescribed under ICAO standards have already been completed. These include examination of the wreckage, analysis of flight recorder data, maintenance records, cockpit voice recorder transcripts, technical component testing, and witness statements.
The Bureau informed the Court that only a few technical assessments remain, including analysis of Engine Monitoring Unit data and organisational factors.
It submitted that the remaining investigation is expected to conclude within approximately six weeks, subject to pending external inputs, after which the draft final report is likely to be prepared around October.
The Bureau also pointed out that investigations involving international aircraft accidents routinely require participation from multiple countries. In the present case, representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, along with Boeing and GE Aerospace, are participating under the internationally recognised framework.
AAIB Opposes Disclosure of Cockpit Recordings
The Bureau also opposed the petitioners' request for disclosure of Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) material.
Referring to Rule 17(5) of the 2025 Rules, it submitted that public disclosure of cockpit voice recordings and airborne image recordings is expressly prohibited.
"The audio content of cockpit voice recordings... shall not be disclosed to the public. This is an absolute statutory prohibition," the affidavit states.
Supreme Court Proceedings Continue
The counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C) No. 1031/2025, Pushkar Raj Sabharwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., where the petitioners have sought an independent expert-led investigation under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
-300x169.webp)
