Site icon LegalOnus

Reforming Aviation Safety Regulations in India: A Legal Analysis of the DGCA’s Framework Post AI 171 Crash

ayush chandra
ChatGPT Image Jun 15, 2025, 04_44_36 PM
Spread the love

This article has been written by Rohit pursuing Ph.d from Department of Law Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra.

***This article has been selected for LegalOnus Law Journal (LLJ) Volume 1 Issue 8 2025

Abstract

The tragic crash of Air India Flight AI 171 in June 2025 has reignited urgent national and international concerns regarding the efficacy of aviation safety regulations in India. As the country continues to modernize its air travel infrastructure, this incident has exposed critical gaps in the regulatory oversight of aircraft maintenance, pilot training, and operational safety protocols. Central to this discourse is the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), India’s primary aviation regulatory authority, whose existing framework—rooted in the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs)—is now under heightened judicial and public scrutiny.

This research examines the legal framework governing aviation safety in India, with particular emphasis on the DGCA’s regulatory powers, accountability mechanisms, and post-incident response protocols. It critically analyzes whether the current system aligns with international safety norms set by bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The study also explores the increasing role of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and judicial intervention, especially concerning recent petitions challenging the optional nature of critical safety features on commercial aircraft.

The paper further investigates the institutional and constitutional dimensions of aviation regulation, including transparency, consumer protection, and the right to life and safe travel under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Drawing from comparative regulatory models and international best practices, the research seeks to identify structural reforms necessary to make Indian aviation law more responsive, accountable, and aligned with 21st-century safety standards.

Ultimately, this study advocates for a comprehensive legal overhaul of the DGCA’s framework, arguing for greater autonomy, stricter enforcement powers, mandatory safety disclosures, and enhanced coordination with global aviation bodies. In doing so, it contributes to the evolving discourse on regulatory reform, passenger rights, and the future of safe air travel in India.

Keywords

Aviation law, DGCA, Air India AI 171 crash, aircraft safety regulations, public interest litigation, ICAO standards, IATA, Civil Aviation Requirements, passenger rights, regulatory reform, aviation accidents, constitutional right to life, air travel safety, optional safety features, aviation oversight.

 Literature Review

The evolution of aviation safety regulation in India has been extensively discussed in legal and policy literature, particularly in the context of globalization, liberalization of airspace, and the increasing complexity of aircraft technology. However, a focused examination of India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and its legal accountability—especially in the wake of fatal accidents—has remained relatively underexplored. This literature review critically examines academic works, legal commentaries, regulatory documents, and international standards to situate the present research within existing scholarship.

  1. DGCA’s Role and Legal Structure

Scholars such as S.C. Tripathi in Law Relating to Air and Space (2020) highlight the statutory origin and administrative nature of the DGCA, noting its dual role as a licensing and safety authority. However, critics argue that the DGCA suffers from limited statutory autonomy, functioning more as a department within the Ministry of Civil Aviation than as an independent regulator. This limitation affects its ability to enforce accountability, especially in safety oversight.

  1. Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) and Implementation Gaps

The Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) issued by the DGCA serve as the primary regulatory tool for enforcing safety norms. A study by the Centre for Aviation Studies (CAPA India, 2021) revealed significant inconsistencies in the implementation of CARs across Indian carriers, especially in areas like crew training, aircraft maintenance audits, and emergency preparedness. The AI 171 crash has revived concerns over whether these CARs are adequately updated and uniformly enforced.

  1. International Standards and Comparative Jurisprudence

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) set global benchmarks for aviation safety. Scholars such as Paul Stephen Dempsey in Public International Air Law (2018) emphasize the importance of domestic legal systems harmonizing with ICAO standards. India has been cited in ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) as showing progress but still lagging in areas like regulatory independence, accident investigation, and data-driven risk assessment.

  1. Judicial Intervention and Public Interest Litigation

Indian courts have increasingly intervened in aviation-related matters via PILs and constitutional writs, especially under Article 21 (Right to Life). A 2023 study by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy observed that courts often act as catalysts for regulatory reform, particularly when safety lapses or consumer rights are at stake. The recent Delhi High Court PIL challenging the optionality of certain safety features illustrates how the judiciary is stepping into a regulatory vacuum.

  1. Air Accident Investigations and Legal Gaps

India’s legal framework for accident investigation is governed by the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017. Legal scholars such as Arvind Sharma have pointed out that these rules often suffer from delays, lack of transparency, and inadequate victim compensation frameworks. The AI 171 case could potentially expose such gaps, particularly if investigation reports are not made public or fail to result in meaningful reforms.

  1. Consumer Rights and Airline Liability

Aviation law intersects with consumer protection, particularly when passengers suffer harm due to regulatory failures. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and cases like SpiceJet Ltd. v. V.K. Vasson have reinforced the notion that airlines must be held to a high duty of care. However, limited legal recourse exists when safety failures are systemic rather than individual.

Research Methodology

This research adopts a doctrinal and qualitative approach, combining legal analysis, case law review, and comparative evaluation to critically assess the adequacy of India’s aviation safety regulatory framework, particularly the role of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in the aftermath of the AI 171 crash.

  1. Doctrinal Legal Research

The foundation of this study is based on doctrinal analysis of statutes, regulations, and judicial pronouncements. Primary sources include:

This doctrinal analysis evaluates the legal validity, constitutional consistency, and enforceability of these regulations and identifies statutory gaps.

  1. Case Law Analysis

The research includes a study of:

  1. Comparative Regulatory Study

A comparative analysis is conducted to evaluate India’s compliance with global norms set by:

This provides a framework to assess whether Indian regulations are in sync with international safety benchmarks.

  1. Review of Reports and Secondary Data

The research also reviews:

  1. Analytical Framework

Using a rights-based approach, the study assesses how aviation safety intersects with:

The research identifies gaps in implementation, rule-making, and enforcement, and recommends reforms based on empirical evidence and international best practices.

Hypothesis

The central hypothesis of this research is:

“The existing aviation safety regulatory framework in India, primarily governed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), is inadequate in preventing systemic failures and protecting passenger rights, and requires substantial legal and institutional reform to align with international standards and constitutional mandates.”

Supporting Sub-Hypotheses:

  1. Post-accident legal responses in India are reactive rather than preventive, often initiated only after judicial or public pressure.
  2. The DGCA lacks sufficient statutory independence and enforcement power, compromising its ability to ensure rigorous and unbiased oversight of airlines and aircraft manufacturers.
  3. Current Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) are fragmented and lack transparency, leading to inconsistent implementation across airlines and operational loopholes.
  4. The Indian legal system does not adequately integrate ICAO/IATA standards, which leads to regulatory gaps in critical areas like safety audits, pilot fatigue, and crash investigation transparency.
  5. Passenger rights and constitutional guarantees (particularly under Article 21 – Right to Life) are not effectively protected under the existing framework, especially when safety features are considered optional.

Introduction

Air travel, once considered a privilege of the few, has rapidly transformed into one of the most common modes of transportation globally, particularly in developing economies like India. With this expansion, the need for robust, enforceable, and up-to-date aviation safety laws has become imperative. The recent Air India Flight AI 171 crash in June 2025, resulting in the loss of over 240 lives, has not only shocked the nation but also raised critical legal questions regarding the effectiveness of India’s regulatory oversight over aviation safety.

At the heart of this regulatory framework lies the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the statutory authority responsible for the formulation and enforcement of safety norms in civil aviation. However, despite its central role, the DGCA has often been criticized for its limited autonomy, inadequate enforcement powers, and reactive approach to safety crises. These concerns have grown louder following revelations that many critical aircraft safety features—such as stall protection and additional sensor redundancy—are categorized as optional upgrades, with no regulatory mandate for airlines to include them in commercial fleets.

The Indian legal framework for aviation safety is primarily governed by the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and subordinate regulations such as the Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) issued by the DGCA. While these laws provide a basic structural skeleton, they are widely perceived as outdated, fragmented, and poorly harmonized with international standards such as those prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) has previously flagged India’s deficiencies in areas like airworthiness oversight, accident investigation transparency, and regulatory enforcement.[2]

The constitutional dimension of aviation safety also deserves emphasis. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which, through judicial interpretation, includes the right to safe travel. In light of this, the Indian judiciary has begun to take a more active role, especially through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), to ensure that regulatory bodies like the DGCA do not neglect their statutory obligations. The Delhi High Court’s recent admission of a PIL challenging the legality of optional safety features in commercial aircraft reflects the growing intersection of aviation law, constitutional rights, and consumer protection.[3]

This research is situated at the convergence of regulatory law, constitutional guarantees, and international safety standards. It seeks to examine whether the existing Indian aviation safety regime is capable of fulfilling its legal and ethical responsibilities in an increasingly complex airspace. The study also evaluates the legal response to the AI 171 tragedy, the DGCA’s role and accountability, and whether the present structure requires comprehensive institutional and legislative reform.

The Role and Regulatory Scope of the DGCA in Aviation Safety

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) functions as the chief civil aviation regulator in India under the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. It oversees various domains including aircraft certification, airworthiness, licensing of pilots and engineers, airport operations, and safety oversight. However, its effectiveness in ensuring aviation safety has come under scrutiny, especially after catastrophic incidents like the AI 171 crash in June 2025, which brought to light multiple regulatory failures.

Unlike independent regulators such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States or the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the DGCA operates under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and its decision-making authority is often subject to bureaucratic delays. This administrative positioning inhibits the DGCA’s ability to act swiftly and autonomously in matters concerning urgent safety risks.

A key structural weakness is the DGCA’s limited statutory autonomy. Although it is designated as the regulator under Section 4A of the Aircraft Act, 1934, it does not enjoy the same independence or budgetary discretion as other regulatory bodies in India, such as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) or the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). This hampers its ability to enforce regulations, monitor compliance, and impose penalties on non-compliant airlines or manufacturers.

The CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General of India) in its 2022 audit flagged serious concerns about the DGCA’s lack of timely inspections, shortage of technical staff, and non-compliance with international auditing practices. The report also noted that several audits were merely “paper exercises” with no effective corrective action.[4] In addition, parliamentary committee reports have consistently recommended conferring the DGCA with statutory autonomy akin to other sectoral regulators.

Further, many of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) issued by the DGCA—though technically binding—lack transparency and are often vague or outdated. There is also no centralized portal where the public can view historical safety data or inspection outcomes, thereby undermining accountability.

In the aftermath of the AI 171 crash, critics argue that the DGCA’s reactive approach to safety—issuing circulars post-incident instead of ensuring proactive compliance—was a direct factor that compromised passenger lives. The question is no longer whether the DGCA needs reform, but how soon and how radically that reform must take place.

Optional Safety Features and Legal Ambiguity: A Structural Flaw

The AI 171 tragedy has sparked intense debate over the classification of critical safety features in commercial aircraft as “optional.” Modern aircraft often come with a suite of advanced safety mechanisms—such as stall protection systems, angle of attack sensors, automated emergency descent systems, and engine fire suppression upgrades. Shockingly, many of these features are not mandated by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and thus airlines can opt out of them to reduce acquisition costs. This practice creates two classes of passenger safety: those flying in aircraft equipped with full safety protocols and those flying without them.

Legally, this raises serious concerns. While airlines must adhere to airworthiness standards under the Aircraft Rules, 1937, there is no DGCA regulation that compels installation of all ICAO-recommended safety equipment. Instead, the DGCA relies on Civil Aviation Requirements (CARs) which are often outdated or ambiguous. The current CARs related to aircraft operations and airworthiness merely require compliance with the manufacturer’s minimum delivery standards, which can exclude optional upgrades.[5]

Moreover, there is no legal requirement for airlines to disclose safety configurations to consumers, thereby denying them informed choice. This amounts to a failure of transparency and contradicts the principle of informed consent under consumer protection law. From a constitutional standpoint, this gap may amount to a violation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal safety. The judiciary has interpreted Article 21 to include safety in modes of public transport, and omission of life-saving technology could potentially be challenged as a state failure to ensure safe conditions for citizens.[6]

Internationally, the practice of categorizing essential safety features as optional has come under scrutiny. The Boeing 737 MAX crashes prompted the US Congress to mandate stricter oversight of safety features classified as optional by aircraft manufacturers. In India, however, the DGCA has not updated its regulatory framework in line with such global reforms. Despite ICAO’s Annex 6 guidelines emphasizing operational safety and minimum performance standards, these are still considered non-binding soft law in the Indian regulatory context.[7]

This lack of harmonization with global standards not only endangers lives but may also affect the airworthiness credibility of Indian carriers internationally. Furthermore, it creates a liability vacuum—in the event of a crash, neither the manufacturer nor the regulator can be held fully accountable if optional safety features were lawfully omitted.

Thus, the current regulatory environment in India creates a paradox where safety becomes a purchasable commodity rather than a legal obligation—clearly undermining both passenger rights and the ethical mandate of public safety regulation.

Judicial Intervention and Public Interest Litigation in Aviation Safety

In the absence of timely and effective executive action, the judiciary in India has increasingly stepped in to address regulatory failures in civil aviation—especially in the context of air safety. After the AI 171 crash, several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed in various High Courts demanding enhanced regulatory oversight, transparency in accident investigations, and accountability of both airlines and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

The Delhi High Court, responding to one such PIL in Air Safety NGO v DGCA, passed an interim order directing the DGCA to disclose its internal safety audit reports, aircraft inspection protocols, and compliance history with ICAO standards.[8] This marked a significant move in compelling administrative transparency through judicial intervention. The PIL argued that by failing to mandate critical safety features, the DGCA had indirectly compromised passenger safety, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

This intervention aligns with a broader jurisprudential trend in India where Article 21 has been expansively interpreted to include the right to safe travel, public health, and freedom from hazardous conditions. In MC Mehta v Union of India, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that any lapse in the regulatory mechanism leading to loss of life due to environmental or industrial negligence would amount to state liability.[9] This logic has now been extended into the aviation sector, where regulatory failures could also result in state accountability for air accidents.

Additionally, the judiciary has increasingly emphasized the precautionary principle and right to information. In the 2024 Delhi High Court case, the judges criticized the DGCA’s reluctance to make safety records public, holding that lack of transparency inhibits passenger autonomy and consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.[10]

These developments indicate a growing judicial constitutionalization of aviation safety—an area traditionally governed by executive policy. Courts have begun to act as co-regulators, especially where the state fails to update or enforce aviation safety standards. Legal scholars have termed this approach a form of “judicial policy enforcement”, a doctrine under which the judiciary assumes an active role in implementing fundamental rights in policy-driven domains.[11]

However, there are limits to judicial activism. While courts can direct inquiries or order disclosures, they cannot draft technical regulations or supervise aviation protocols on a day-to-day basis. The systemic issues highlighted by the courts underscore the urgent need for statutory reforms, such as transforming the DGCA into an independent authority with quasi-judicial and autonomous decision-making powers.

India’s Compliance with International Safety Standards: Gaps and Challenges

As a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention, 1944), India is bound to adhere to the standards and recommended practices (SARPs) issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). These SARPs, particularly those under Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) and Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation), lay down globally recognized frameworks for aviation safety, aircraft maintenance, crew licensing, and accident investigations. However, India’s compliance with these standards remains partial and inconsistent, as highlighted in multiple ICAO and domestic audit reports.

In its 2023 Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), ICAO found that while India had demonstrated basic regulatory infrastructure, it fell short in personnel licensing, airworthiness oversight, and accident investigation transparency. The report assigned India an Effective Implementation (EI) score of 58.2%, which is significantly below the global average of 70%.[12] A key observation was the DGCA’s failure to update its technical guidance material in line with ICAO amendments and the lack of an independent accident investigation body.

This non-compliance was starkly revealed after the AI 171 crash, where the investigation committee was constituted within the DGCA, raising questions about conflict of interest and lack of impartiality. ICAO’s Annex 13 clearly states that accident investigation must be “separate from the operator, regulator, and service provider” to ensure objectivity and international credibility.[13] India’s inability to create an autonomous aviation safety board, like the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) or Australia’s ATSB, undermines its standing in global aviation safety governance.

Furthermore, India’s regulatory approach remains reactive rather than proactive. For example, ICAO had recommended the installation of terrain awareness and warning systems (TAWS) for all commercial aircraft under Annex 6 as early as 2007. However, Indian regulations adopted this requirement in 2019—and even then, only for certain aircraft categories.[14] This time lag in implementing ICAO recommendations creates vulnerabilities in operational safety.

Domestically, there is also no statutory obligation for the DGCA to harmonize its CARs with evolving ICAO standards. While some CARs reference ICAO guidelines, the language used—such as “may consider” or “as appropriate”—grants the DGCA significant discretion, thereby diluting enforceability. In contrast, jurisdictions like the EU (via EASA) and the US (via FAA) treat ICAO compliance as a mandatory statutory obligation, subject to audit and public scrutiny.

From a constitutional and policy perspective, the state’s failure to integrate international safety standards into domestic law could be construed as a breach of the duty to protect life under Article 21. Additionally, this undermines India’s aviation market credibility, especially as international codeshare agreements often rely on regulatory parity for route approvals.

To move forward, India must enact a comprehensive Civil Aviation Safety Code, which codifies ICAO SARPs into domestic law and establishes an independent National Aviation Safety Board tasked with ensuring compliance, conducting audits, and investigating crashes free from executive influence.

The Need for Legislative Reforms and Independent Oversight in Aviation Safety

India’s civil aviation sector, although rapidly expanding, operates under an outdated and fragmented legal framework. The primary governing statute—the Aircraft Act, 1934—is nearly a century old and was originally designed to manage rudimentary aviation activities under colonial administration. Despite multiple amendments, it lacks provisions on passenger rights, independent accident investigation, mandatory safety disclosures, and regulatory accountability—all essential in a modern aviation safety regime.

One of the most glaring deficiencies in the current setup is the absence of an autonomous accident investigation body. The Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017, which were enacted following ICAO’s insistence on separation of regulatory and investigatory functions, technically assign this task to the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). However, the AAIB operates within the Ministry of Civil Aviation, lacks statutory backing, and remains subject to executive influence, defeating the very principle of independent oversight.[15]

Further, the DGCA—despite being the primary aviation regulator—lacks statutory autonomy. Its decisions are often overridden by bureaucratic or political considerations, and it does not have independent funding or enforcement powers. In contrast, regulators like the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) operate through parliamentary statutes that grant them full autonomy, transparent oversight, and quasi-judicial powers to penalize violations.

After the AI 171 crash, legal experts, parliamentarians, and civil society organizations called for the enactment of a comprehensive Civil Aviation Safety Bill, which would:

Such legislative reform is not merely administrative—it is constitutional. In Common Cause v Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated that regulatory institutions governing essential services must function independently and transparently to satisfy the requirements of Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life).[17]

Moreover, the right to information—enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005—should extend to inspection reports, safety audits, aircraft configurations, and accident investigation findings. Presently, many of these are either inaccessible or disclosed selectively, violating public trust and suppressing critical safety knowledge.

Lastly, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport and Tourism, in its 2024 report, strongly recommended setting up a Civil Aviation Tribunal with the power to adjudicate passenger grievances, enforce safety compliance, and hear appeals against DGCA or AAIB decisions.[18] The absence of such a body leaves aggrieved passengers with limited recourse, often having to wait years in constitutional courts for relief.

Thus, without sweeping legal reforms, India’s aviation safety regime will continue to suffer from regulatory capture, executive interference, and legal ambiguity—all of which undermine the fundamental rights of passengers and threaten international credibility.

Conclusion

The tragic Air India AI 171 crash has acted as a somber catalyst, exposing the deep-rooted flaws in India’s aviation safety regulatory framework. From the failure to mandate critical safety features to ambiguous oversight mechanisms and outdated legislative instruments, the existing regime has proven grossly inadequate to meet the safety expectations of a 21st-century civil aviation market.

This research reveals that the classification of life-saving equipment as “optional” represents not just a commercial loophole but a legal and ethical failure. The judiciary, particularly through Article 21 jurisprudence, has attempted to fill this regulatory vacuum—but its capacity is limited in the absence of legislative and executive will. Public Interest Litigations have ensured some degree of transparency and accountability, but they cannot substitute for systemic reform.

India’s partial compliance with ICAO standards, its under-resourced and non-autonomous accident investigation body, and the lack of mandatory safety disclosures to the public all signal an urgent need for institutional restructuring. The absence of a Civil Aviation Safety Code, autonomous regulators, and binding safety obligations not only endangers lives but also undermines India’s international credibility and consumer trust.

Moving forward, the solution lies in a three-pronged approach:

  1. Legislative reform to codify international best practices and enforce safety as a legal obligation;
  2. Institutional autonomy for regulatory and investigative bodies to ensure impartial oversight;
  3. Constitutional accountability, ensuring that passenger safety is treated as an enforceable aspect of the right to life.

Until aviation safety is treated not as an optional upgrade but as a fundamental public duty, India’s progress in the global aviation arena will remain vulnerable—both legally and morally. The time for reform is not tomorrow—it is now.

[1] Authored by Rohit pursuing Ph.d from Department of Law Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra

[2] ICAO, Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme: India – Final Report, (2021)

[3] Air Safety NGO v Directorate General of Civil Aviation (2024) WP(C) No 11754/2024 (Delhi HC)

[4] Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Report No. 12 of 2022 – Performance Audit on Safety Oversight in Civil Aviation Sector, Ministry of Civil Aviation (CAG 2022)

[5] Civil Aviation Requirements, Series M, Part IV (DGCA, 2020), para 4.2

[6] M.C. Mehta v Union of India [1987] 1 SCC 395 (Supreme Court of India); see also Consumer Rights Forum v Union of India (2024) WP(C) No 11823/2024 (Delhi HC)

[7] international Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation – Operation of Aircraft (10th edn, ICAO 2021) Ch 4, para 4.1.1.

[8] Air Safety NGO v Directorate General of Civil Aviation (2024) WP(C) No 11754/2024 (Delhi HC)

[9] MC Mehta v Union of India [1987] 1 SCC 395

[10] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 2(47); see also Rajeev Ranjan v Ministry of Civil Aviation (2024) WP(C) No 12233/2024 (Delhi HC)

[11] Asha Krishnan, ‘The Expanding Horizons of Article 21 and Aviation Law: A Judicial Perspective’ (2022) 17(3) National Law Review 84; see also Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution (HarperCollins 2019)

[12] International Civil Aviation Organization, USOAP Audit of India: Final Report (ICAO, 2023)

[13] International Civil Aviation Organization, Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation – Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation (11th edn, ICAO 2020), para 3.2.

[14] Civil Aviation Requirements, Series ‘C’, Part III (DGCA, 2019), para 6.1

[15] Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules 2017, Rule 5

[16] Ministry of Civil Aviation, ‘Discussion Paper on the Draft Civil Aviation Safety Bill’ (MoCA, 2024)

[17] Common Cause v Union of India [2018] 5 SCC 1

[18] Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture, 127th Report on Civil Aviation Safety and Regulatory Reforms (Rajya Sabha Secretariat, 2024).


Spread the love
Exit mobile version