The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday described as “unfortunate” the selective leak of the preliminary inquiry report, which scoffed at speculation in the media about pilot error in the crash of an Air India Boeing aircraft at Ahmedabad in June this year, and called for maintaining absolute confidentiality until the inquiry is complete.
The top court also expressed concern over the “piecemeal leaking of the information” and “irresponsible” reporting by the media while emphasising the need to avoid rumours and speculations about the investigation into the accident of Boeing 787-8 aircraft operating flight AI171 en route to London that claimed 260 lives on June 12, 2025.
These oral observations were made by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which was hearing a PIL seeking an independent, Supreme Court-monitored investigation into the crash, alleging that the manner in which the probe has been conducted violates the fundamental rights to life, equality and truthful information.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner — Safety Matters Foundation, an aviation safety NGO led by Capt Amit Singh, under Article 32 of the Constitution, made a submission about the contents of the enquiry report, stating that “the preliminary report was suggestive of pilot error, which was reported by so many media organisations.”
This submission evoked immediate reaction from the bench, which said, “That was unfortunate.” Bhushan also drew the attention of the bench to the fact that The Wall Street Journal also published a report blaming the senior pilot, even before the official release of the preliminary report.
He also said that many media outlets came out with ridiculous stories that a pilot was suicidal. On this, the bench said such media reports were irresponsible. “Very irresponsible kind of [reporting]...confidentiality is the most important thing in these matters,” he said.
Bhushan, along with advocate Pranav Sachdeva, submitted that a five-member team had been constituted to investigate the accident, of which three members are serving officers of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which leads to a serious conflict of interest since the role of the DGCA itself was under scrutiny. “How can officers of the very organisation whose role is likely to be examined be part of the inquiry?” they questioned.
The bench was not in agreement with the demand of the NGO for disclosure of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), which, according to it, contained critical information about faults that may have occurred.
“It’s not advisable to release [FDR at this point],” observed the bench while maintaining that the demand for a fair and impartial inquiry was understandable and issued notices and sought response within two weeks from the respondents - Centre, DGCA and Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) -- on the limited prayer for “free, fair, impartial, expeditious and independent investigation by an expert body.”
The Bench also took note of the submission that pilots and families of the victims have expressed concern over a cryptic sentence in the preliminary report, suggesting a pilot had asked another why fuel was cut off, which was seized upon by the international media to build a narrative of pilot error.
“That was very unfortunate,” was the remark of the bench, which said, “Instead of piecemeal leaking of information, somebody should maintain confidentiality till regular inquiry is taken to a logical conclusion.”
While Bhushan was building his arguments that the leak of isolated lines from the preliminary report, according to him, distorted the larger picture, the SC emphasised the need to avoid rumours and speculations till the final enquiry is complete. “When this kind of tragedy happens, one airline would be blamed. Boeing and Airbus will not be attributed with fault, and so the entire airline is run down,” the bench observed.