|
The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on a contempt plea filed by the Indian Pilots Guild (IPG), which has alleged that airlines were granted extensions and relaxations in pilot fatigue management rules in violation of the CAR 2024 framework.
A bench of Justice Amit Sharma issued notice to the DGCA and directed its top officials to file their responses in the matter. The court listed the case for the next hearing on April 17, 2026. The plea contends that the DGCA diluted the new Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms by approving airline-specific schemes that do not fully comply with the timelines and conditions previously placed before the court. However, DGCA's counsel opposed the contempt plea, saying the court had not frozen the contents of the CAR. While implementation timelines were binding, the regulator retained statutory powers under the Aircraft Act and Rules to grant temporary, case-specific exemptions. It was also argued that such relaxations were limited, subject to review, and that the CAR remains in force, adding that the issue is already pending before a High Court division bench. According to the petition, the High Court had earlier recorded the DGCA's assurance that the new FDTL norms would be implemented in a phased manner, with most provisions coming into force by July 1, 2025, and the remaining ones by November 1, 2025. The pilots' body alleged that despite this assurance, the regulator granted relaxations to airlines without obtaining court permission, thereby undermining the fatigue rules designed to protect both flight and passenger safety. As background, on December 5, amid widespread flight cancellations, the DGCA granted IndiGo a temporary, one-time exemption from particular night operations-related changes under the new FDTL norms for its Airbus A320 pilots. Pilot bodies have cited this exemption as an example of how the rules are being diluted. In November 2025, the Federation of Indian Pilots moved the contempt petition, alleging that the DGCA deliberately failed to comply with the High Court's directions. The union claimed that, despite assurances to the court, the regulator granted extensions and relaxations to airlines and approved fatigue management schemes that did not align with the CAR 2024 norms or the agreed timelines. (ANI)
|
