Delhi : High Court Questions DGCA Delay on Flight Duty Time Rules
Delhi : High Court on Wednesday asked the aviation regulator to clearly explain why revised flight duty and rest rules, designed to improve safety, were placed on hold despite being formally notified. The court signaled that safety-related regulations cannot be suspended lightly once they are framed, particularly when they have a direct bearing on passenger welfare.
Court Emphasises Mandatory Enforcement of Safety Rules
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that regulatory frameworks created in the interest of safety are expected to be enforced as a matter of course. The judges noted that such rules can only be withheld if they suffer from legal defects or are successfully challenged before a competent forum.
The Bench remarked that the concerns raised in the petition deserved serious consideration, as the revised norms were closely linked to aviation safety. It added that regulations addressing safety cannot be treated as optional administrative measures.
Challenge to DGCA’s Decision to Keep Rules in Abeyance
The case arises from a petition questioning the decision of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to defer the implementation of updated Flight Duty Time Limitation norms until February 10, 2026. The petition argues that the delay undermines the very purpose for which the revised standards were introduced.
The Flight Duty Time Limitation framework sets out limits on flying hours and mandates minimum rest periods for pilots and cabin crew. Its objective is to manage fatigue more effectively, thereby reducing the risk of human error in flight operations.
Background of the Petitioners
The petition was filed by Sabari Roy, a former aircraft engineer, along with Aman Monga and Kiran Singh. Roy brings technical expertise and practical experience in aircraft maintenance and operations. Monga has worked extensively as a Crew Resource Management trainer, while Singh is a social worker engaged in public interest causes.
Together, the petitioners contend that their combined professional backgrounds give them a legitimate stake in matters affecting aviation safety and passenger protection.
Objections Raised Over Locus Standi
During the hearing, the respondents questioned Roy’s standing to maintain the petition. They pointed out that a separate challenge to the same set of Flight Duty Time Limitation regulations, filed by pilots’ associations, is already pending before a Single Judge of the High Court.
The court, however, declined to dismiss the petition at the preliminary stage. It noted that Roy’s professional role as an aircraft engineer was directly connected with flight safety and passenger well-being, making it inappropriate to exclude her outright.
Public Interest Nature of the Dispute
The Bench also clarified that the existence of a similar petition before a Single Judge does not prevent others from approaching the court on issues of public interest. The judges observed that aviation safety affects a wide section of the public and cannot be confined to the concerns of one group alone.
They emphasized that multiple stakeholders are entitled to raise safety-related issues, particularly when regulatory decisions have broad implications for the traveling public.
Reasons Cited for Deferring the Rules
The aviation regulator had earlier decided to pause the revised norms following significant operational disruptions in late 2025. These disruptions included large-scale flight cancellations, particularly linked to scheduling and operational challenges faced by IndiGo.
According to the DGCA, the temporary suspension was intended to stabilize flight operations and prevent further disruption across the aviation network.
Alignment With International Safety Standards
The petition highlights that the revised Flight Duty Time Limitation regulations were notified to bring India’s aviation safety regime in line with global standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It argues that postponing the rules weakens fatigue management measures and compromises passenger safety.
The court has now directed counsel representing the DGCA to seek instructions and place the regulator’s detailed position before the Bench at the next hearing scheduled for January 29.