The Madras High Court has put the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on the spot, demanding a clear explanation on whether it plans to prolong a controversial exemption granted to IndiGo concerning mandatory fatigue management rules for its pilots. The court's intervention came during a hearing on a petition challenging the legality of the regulator's decision.
Court Questions Regulatory Decision
Justice V Lakshminarayanan presided over the hearing of a plea filed by Y R Rajaveni, which sought to have the exemption provided to Interglobe Aviation Limited, the parent company of IndiGo, declared illegal and void. When the matter was heard on Friday, the court explicitly asked the aviation regulator to state its intentions regarding the future of this exemption.
Representing the central government, Additional Solicitor-General A R L Sundaresan defended the DGCA's initial move. He argued that the exemption was necessary because the airline was not in a position to comply with the strict fatigue management requirements. He warned that forcing immediate compliance could have led to large-scale flight cancellations, severely disrupting air travel across the country.
Petitioner's Arguments Against the Exemption
However, Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghose, representing the petitioner, presented a strong counter-argument. He contended that the DGCA granted the exemption primarily to facilitate IndiGo's aggressive expansion plans, while disregarding the established Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) designed for pilot safety and well-being.
Ghose raised a significant legal point, alleging that the exemption order violated the Aircraft Rules, 1937. He cited Rule 133A(1), which states that any order passed under Rule 133A(4) cannot be inconsistent with the parent legislation, the Aircraft Act of 1934. The counsel pointed out that the DGCA's exemption order, dated December 5, 2025, was fundamentally contrary to this rule, making it legally untenable.
DGCA Given Deadline for Formal Response
After carefully recording the submissions from both sides, Justice Lakshminarayanan issued a directive to the DGCA. The aviation regulator has been ordered to file a detailed counter-affidavit on record by January 5. In this affidavit, the DGCA must specifically clarify whether it intends to extend the exemption granted on December 5, 2025, for an additional period or not.
This judicial scrutiny places the spotlight back on the critical balance between operational flexibility for airlines and the non-negotiable safety standards meant to protect pilots from fatigue. The court's upcoming deadline ensures that the DGCA will have to formally justify its regulatory stance on this sensitive issue affecting one of India's largest carriers.
