The Supreme Court of India on Friday made a strong statement clarifying that the pilots of Air India Flight AI-171, which crashed on June 12, 2025, killing over 250 people, cannot be held responsible for the tragedy. The remarks came as the court agreed to hear a plea filed by the father of the pilot-in-command, seeking a judicially monitored investigation into the crash. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, underscored that no government or official report to date has attributed blame to the cockpit crew, and emphasized the need to shield the family from any perceived insinuation of culpability.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for petitioner Pushkaraj Sabharwal—the father of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal—was told by the bench that the family should not carry the burden of public speculation. “This is an extremely unfortunate accident. But you should not carry this burden that your son is being blamed. We can always clarify that nobody, and especially the pilot, cannot be blamed for the tragedy,” the court remarked. The bench further clarified that preliminary reports from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) did not indicate any fault on the part of the pilots. “There is just a mention of the cockpit recorder where one pilot asks your son whether he turned off a switch and your son answers in the negative. That is all there is in the report. The main purpose of the investigation is to ensure such incidents do not recur,” the judges said.

The petition filed by Sabharwal, along with the Federation of Indian Pilots, sought a court-monitored inquiry, asserting that the preliminary findings of the AAIB suggesting “human error” were defective and prejudiced. It contended that the investigation ignored potential electrical or digital system failures in the Boeing 787 aircraft. The petition argued that attributing the crash to pilot error without ruling out a malfunction in the aircraft’s integrated digital control architecture was a reversal of causation that unfairly maligns the deceased crew members, who were no longer able to defend themselves.

Sankaranarayanan pointed out that questions posed to the pilot’s family about Captain Sabharwal’s personal life, along with selective media reporting, had created a misleading narrative of culpability. Specifically, he referred to a Wall Street Journal report based on unnamed government sources, which implied that the captain may have inadvertently caused the accident. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the reliance on foreign reportage, observing, “With respect, you should have filed a suit against the Wall Street Journal in an American court. Your angst is understandable, but there is clear incongruity between public perception and the factual position.”

The bench highlighted that in India, “We are a country of 142 crore people, and none of them believes the blame has to go to the pilot. Whatever could be the reason of the tragedy, it is not the pilots.” The judges further noted that any legal challenge to the ongoing statutory inquiry would need to be directed against the relevant provisions of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, under which the investigation is conducted.

The court agreed to examine the petition alongside a similar plea filed earlier by the NGO Safety Matters Foundation, on which it had issued notice in September. During that earlier hearing, the bench described as “unfortunate” the selective disclosure of preliminary report details suggesting pilot error, stressing that families should not bear additional stigma following such a tragic loss. The petition filed by the NGO had sought an impartial and expert-led investigation and highlighted the presence of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) officials on the AAIB panel as a potential conflict of interest. The Supreme Court had emphasized that aviation accident inquiries must be conducted in a free, fair, impartial, and expeditious manner, noting that incomplete or selective disclosures could distort public understanding and damage reputations.

Air India Flight AI-171 had taken off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on June 12, carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members. Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft crashed, killing 229 passengers, all crew members, and 19 people on the ground, while leaving several others seriously injured. The AAIB led the investigation, with participation from the US National Transportation Safety Board, the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, and Boeing representatives.

The preliminary report, released on July 12, indicated that both engine fuel control switches moved from RUN to CUTOFF seconds after takeoff, causing a loss of thrust. The cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot questioning the fuel cutoff, with the other denying responsibility. The Ram Air Turbine, a backup power system designed to deploy automatically when the aircraft loses primary and auxiliary power, activated during the incident. Although one engine began to recover once the switches were returned to RUN, the aircraft was unable to regain altitude, and a Mayday call was recorded just before impact.

The petitioners argued that the Ram Air Turbine deployment indicates a serious systems failure rather than pilot action. They emphasized Captain Sabharwal’s impeccable record: over 15,600 flying hours and a three-decade career with no disciplinary issues. The petition asserted that the initial investigation had disproportionately focused on pilot conduct, despite other plausible explanations, such as potential software or avionics malfunctions in the Boeing 787’s integrated digital control system. They further highlighted that similar electrical anomalies had been reported globally in the aircraft model, yet no independent forensic or fault-injection testing had been commissioned to verify or rule out these risks.

The petitioners called for a judicially monitored inquiry led by a former Supreme Court judge and aviation experts. They argued that a rushed or incomplete probe could not only tarnish the memory of the deceased pilots but also endanger future passengers if systemic vulnerabilities remained undetected. In their view, an independent and expert-led investigation would restore credibility, ensure transparency, and contribute to aviation safety in India.

The Supreme Court’s statement on Friday, therefore, served as a strong reassurance to the family, affirming that the preliminary findings did not blame the pilots and that public insinuations or media reports were not grounded in the facts established by the official inquiry. The court’s remarks reflected the broader principle that aviation accidents are complex events requiring meticulous investigation of all technical and procedural aspects, and that individual operators should not be unfairly scapegoated in the absence of clear evidence.

The court has scheduled the matter for a hearing next week, when it will consider the plea alongside other petitions related to the AI-171 crash investigation. Until then, the Supreme Court has made it clear that Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and his colleagues cannot be held responsible for the tragic crash, reaffirming that the focus of the investigation should remain on understanding the technical and systemic causes to prevent future disasters.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s observations underscored three critical points: first, the pilots of AI-171 bear no responsibility for the crash; second, media reports and public perception must not misrepresent preliminary findings; and third, the ongoing statutory investigation should be conducted transparently, impartially, and with expert oversight to ensure the safety of future air travel and maintain public trust in aviation governance.