Kamal Ghorui
New Delhi: Concerns about public safety due to non-implementation of DGCA regulations to prevent pilot fatigue could not be “brushed aside”, Delhi high court said Wednesday, and sought the aviation regulator’s stand on a plea challenging its decision to keep in abeyance the revised Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms.FDTL regulations prescribe minimum rest periods for pilots and flight crew members and aim to strengthen fatigue management to ensure passenger safety.Hearing a PIL against DGCA’s move to pause implementation of the revised FDTL norms till Feb 10 in the wake of a massive disruption in IndiGo operations, a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia orally remarked: “It has a direct link to the safety of passengers. Unless the regulations are challenged, or there is some flaw, they need to enforce it. The regulations were in force for a long time, but they were not being followed. We are not considering the rationale of the regulations. When regulations are in force, they are to be implemented until revised.”The bench listed the matter for hearing on Thursday and asked the DGCA counsel to seek instructions.The PIL submitted that IndiGo had cancelled hundreds of flights across the country in the first week of Dec 2025, as the airline was not adequately prepared to implement the new flight-duty norms for pilots. On Dec 5, DGCA eased the regulations — by allowing the substitution of leave with a weekly rest period — to enable IndiGo to have more pilots on duty to normalise operations.The petitioner alleged that the relaxation was illegally given by DGCA only to IndiGo, and was prima facie mala fide. The court, however, said the relaxation was applicable to all airlines.When the counsel for IndiGo questioned the locus of the petitioner, Sabari Roy, the HC dismissed it saying she was a former aircraft engineer and the issue had a bearing on public safety.“She worked as an aircraft engineer. Her functions are directly connected with passenger safety… The concern cannot be brushed aside,” the court said, noting that once in force, the regulations must be implemented unless decided otherwise by authorities.The bench, however, acknowledged that such petitions created pressure on regulators and they sometimes succumbed to it.
