Time for Takeoff: Why India Needs an Independent Aircraft Accident Investigation Mechanism

Samyak Deshpande

Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai

Introduction

In a country soaring towards becoming one of the world’s largest aviation markets, India cannot afford to let its aircraft accident investigation system remain grounded in opacity and conflicts of interest. Each crash must not just be a statistic; it must be a call for justice, transparency, and systemic reform. Yet, the present structure of aircraft accident investigation in India reflects an inherent contradiction: how can the regulator of aviation also be its watchdog?

This article examines the urgent need for an independent aircraft accident investigation mechanism in India, which would be a system that doesn’t merely react to disasters, but is empowered to prevent them, expose institutional lapses, and deliver truth to grieving families.

The Illusion of Independence

At present, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (‘AAIB’) is a statutory body constituted under the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘Aircraft Rules, 2017’). On paper, it appears to function autonomously. In practice, however, the AAIB operates under the direct administrative control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (‘MoCA’), the same body that regulates airline operations through the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’) and appoints leadership across all aviation regulators.

This structure is a textbook case of conflict of interest. How can the same Ministry that governs airlines also oversee investigations into their failures? How can a body whose top officials are often drawn from the very entities being investigated ensure a fair and thorough probe? This lack of structural independence fatally undermines the legitimacy of AAIB’s investigations.

By contrast, railway accident investigations in India are undertaken by the Commissioner of Railway Safety, a technically independent body functioning under the Ministry of Civil Aviation (and not Railways). Aviation deserves no less, and arguably more, given the complexity and risks involved.

A Wake-Up Call in Ahmedabad

The aircraft accident in Ahmedabad on 12 June 2025, was not an isolated incident. It was the most recent in a pattern of safety breaches that have plagued India’s rapidly expanding aviation ecosystem, from helicopter crashes and flying school incidents to ground handling failures and weather-related emergencies like the Delhi-Srinagar IndiGo flight in May 2025.

Each of these events reveals the same disturbing truth: India is reactive rather than preventive in aviation safety. Instead of proactively fixing systemic risks, the current framework resorts to post-accident firefighting. That is no way to run a 21^st-century aviation sector.

To safeguard public confidence and safety, India must overhaul its National Civil Aviation Policy (‘NCAP’) with safety as its core principle. This revamp must begin with establishing an independent investigative body, untethered from bureaucratic pressures and industry interests.

When the Truth is Inconvenient

There is a good illustration for this. In 1997, the Air Marshal J.K. Seth Committee Report candidly exposed critical gaps in India’s aviation safety, including fragmented oversight, regulatory capture, lack of training, and the absence of investigative independence. Instead of acting on these findings, authorities buried the report because it told uncomfortable truths. Sadly, those same truths haunt us today.

Too many aircraft accident reports in India suffer from internal inconsistencies, factual gaps, and apparent obfuscations. In the 2001 accident that killed a former Union Minister, investigators cited “entry into cloud” as the cause, even though the meteorological data said there were no clouds. In the Aurangabad crash of Indian Airlines IC491 (1993), overloading was clearly a factor but was glossed over in the final report.

More recently, data regarding suspected overloading on Air India Express flight IX611 (Tiruchi to Dubai, October 2018) has been persistently denied to researchers and families. The result? Justice delayed, and the truth denied.

Misuse of Technical Findings in Legal Proceedings

Under Rule 5 of the Aircraft Rules, 2017, the primary purpose of aircraft accident investigations is safety improvement, not to assign blame or trigger legal action. And yet, the AAIB’s technical findings are routinely misused by law enforcement and even courts as de facto evidence of criminal liability.

Investigating officers often lack aviation expertise yet rely on the AAIB’s “probable cause” statements as final verdicts. Courts, overwhelmed with other matters, may default to these findings instead of demanding a deeper, more nuanced understanding. The result? Pilots become scapegoats. Case closed.

This judicial misuse dilutes the integrity of AAIB reports and discourages a no-blame safety culture, which is fundamental to aviation risk management. If every accident becomes a potential criminal prosecution, truth will always take a backseat to legal defensibility.

The Convenient Blame on Pilot Error

One of the most common conclusions in Indian aviation accident reports is pilot error. While this may be valid in some cases, its frequency raises eyebrows. Why is this the fallback explanation?

Legally, it simplifies the blame game.

1.     For insurance, it expedites claims and avoids protracted liability investigations.

2.     Institutionally, it shields airlines, maintenance teams, and air traffic controllers from scrutiny.

3.     This creates a dangerous precedent, where a dead pilot cannot defend himself, and other stakeholders evade accountability. The pilot becomes the final stop in the chain of responsibility, regardless of systemic or technical failures.

Investigations should serve people, not institutions. But the AAIB, being under the MoCA, finds itself in a conflicted role. Its investigations are expected to scrutinize decisions made by bodies that are effectively its bosses. The result is dilution, delay, or even deletion of facts.

In the Kozhikode crash of August 2020, which claimed 21 lives, neither the AAIB recommendations nor the post-incident review committee's suggestions were fully implemented. The official silence that followed spoke volumes.

According to the ICAO State Safety Briefing (2022), India reported zero fatal accidents. That’s because investigations either remain inconclusive or are coded and closed without structural follow-through.

 The Road to Reform: What Must Be Done

It’s not enough to criticize the status quo. Here’s what a credible and independent aircraft accident investigation mechanism in India must include:

1.     Structural Autonomy

Move both the AAIB and DGCA out of the Ministry of Civil Aviation’s purview and establish them as independent statutory bodies, reporting directly to Parliament. Their budgets and appointments should be subject to legislative oversight.

2.     Legal Firewalls

Amend laws to ensure that AAIB reports cannot be used in criminal prosecutions unless corroborated by an independent forensic aviation body. The current misuse disincentivizes full disclosure and suppresses truth.

3.     Reform in Rule 19(3) of Aircraft Rules, 1937 

This rule empowers penal action against pilots for errors. It must be amended to protect pilots unless gross negligence or wilful misconduct is established. Innocent errors must remain within the realm of learning, not punishment.

4.     No Parallel Committees

Discontinue the practice of appointing ad hoc investigative committees that override or dilute the AAIB’s authority. Investigations must be uniform, accountable, and governed by codified procedures.

5.     Establish an Aviation Ombudsman

Create an independent ombudsman empowered to review how investigations are conducted, how reports are written, and whether recommendations are implemented. The ombudsman should also be empowered to address family grievances.

Conclusion: From Silence to Integrity

India does not lack skilled investigators or technological capability. What it lacks is institutional courage, the will to confront uncomfortable truths and make aviation safety truly people-centric.

Every plane crash leaves behind more than wreckage; it leaves behind unanswered questions, grieving families, and a fractured public trust. We owe it to those who perish not just to find out what went wrong, but to ensure it never happens again.

India must rise above the politics of protection and the convenience of silence. It is time to build a truly independent, fearless, and transparent aircraft accident investigation framework, one that serves the living, honours the dead, and speaks only the language of truth.