When, in April 2025, the Delhi High Court disposed of a decade-long litigation over pilot fatigue regulations, it believed it was closing a chapter. After years of tussle between pilot unions and the aviation regulator, the court was assured that India finally had a modernised, enforceable fatigue-mitigation system in the form of Civil Aviation Requirements 2024 (CAR 2024). Airlines, including IndiGo, were directed to file their Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) schemes within three weeks, implementation timelines were fixed, and the case was settled.
Eight months later, that confidence has unravelled. India’s largest airline, IndiGo, found itself cancelling hundreds of flights, triggering nationwide chaos. The very rules the High Court thought were on track became the epicentre of one of the biggest operational breakdowns in recent aviation memory. On December 5, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) temporarily suspended the FDTL rules, an extraordinary measure that underlined the depth of the crisis.
Through a letter representation now, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has been urged to invoke the suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The plea termed this a national aviation collapse and prayed for judicial intervention to safeguard the Article 21 rights of millions of passengers.
How the crisis traces back to the High Court's April order
In April, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju recorded the government's submission that 15 clauses of CAR 2024 would be implemented by July 1, 2025, and the remaining seven by November 1. The petitions filed by the Indian Commercial Pilots Association, Indian Pilots Guild, and Federation of Indian Pilots were closed on the understanding that regulatory rollout was progressing and enforcement would follow.
The litigation originally began in 2012, with pilot unions demanding FDTL norms in line with global fatigue-risk science.
Plea before the Supreme Court
This representation to CJI Surya Kant goes beyond operational analysis in framing the situation as one of constitutional failure across healthcare, education, livelihood, and personal dignity.
It emphasises how abrupt cancellations disrupted critical medical travel, organ transplants, emergency surgeries, and specialist consultations. Hospitals reportedly recorded missed operations and severe emotional distress. Students travelling for entrance exams, interviews, and scholarship evaluations reportedly missed opportunities after investing in substantial resources to travel.
Working professionals, including government officers, defence personnel, lawyers, and industrial supervisors, missed hearings, inspections, tenders, and official assignments —all with measurable financial loss. Many passengers also missed funerals, births, and other key family events, which aggravated trauma.
The complaint accuses the airlines of non-provision of timely information, alternative routing, refunds, and assistance. The accusation is that regulatory bodies responded with delayed, ineffective, and poorly coordinated decision-making when IndiGo commands a 60 per cent market share and the pressures of the winter schedule were predictable.
What the plea seeks
The representation has asked the Supreme Court to seek a status report from DGCA and the ministry of civil aviation on the causes and remedial steps. It has sought directions to the government to frame emergency aviation protocols, including alternative arrangements and compensation norms. It has also sought a mandate for a passenger protection framework on refunds, transparency, airport assistance, and grievance redressal. Fix regulatory and operational accountability for the breakdown.
The IndiGo crisis shows a deep mismatch between regulatory intention and operational preparedness. At the core of the crisis lies CAR 2024, which was meant to bring India in line with global fatigue-risk standards. Inadequate transition planning and poor industry-regulator coordination instead triggered a meltdown.
The IndiGo crisis has also brought to light the unpreparedness of the aviation system for the new fatigue rules. According to experts, the DGCA first announced strict safety norms but didn't chalk out a smooth transition plan, while the airlines didn't hire enough pilots or adjust schedules on time. While CAR 2024 is intended to protect the passengers and pilots, the airlines appeared ill-equipped in keeping up with the law, leading to large-scale cancellations. Now, with the rules already suspended, many are worried that safety may take a backseat to restore flights as soon as possible. With a plea now before the CJI, the question is whether stronger oversight is needed to prevent such chaos again.
