Supreme Court tells pilot’s father truth is known
On June 12, tragedy struck as Air India Flight AI-171 crashed after takeoff, killing 229 passengers and 19 others.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday made a heartfelt observation in the case of the Air India Flight AI-171 crash, assuring the father of the pilot-in-command that no one holds his son responsible for the tragedy that claimed more than 250 lives. The court said it was willing to state this clearly on record, emphasizing that official reports had not blamed the flight crew for the disaster.
The remarks came as a bench of Justices heard a plea filed by the father of the pilot, seeking a judicially monitored investigation into the June 12 crash, which killed all 229 passengers, the entire crew, and 19 people on the ground when the aircraft went down shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad. The petitioner had expressed deep anguish over what he described as insinuations against his late son in public discourse and sections of the media.
“This is an extremely unfortunate accident,” the bench said gently, addressing the grieving father. We can always clarify that nobody — and especially the pilot — can be held responsible for the tragedy.”
The court underlined that the preliminary inquiry report found no evidence of negligence or error on the part of the cockpit crew. “We have gone through the report. Whatever could be the reason for the tragedy, it is not the pilots,” the judges said, adding that the focus of the investigation should remain on preventing such accidents in the future rather than apportioning blame.
The bench noted that the report merely included a brief mention of the cockpit voice recorder, where one pilot asked the commander whether he had turned off a particular switch, and the commander replied in the negative. “It is not a finding of fault or a suggestion of error.
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), seeking their responses to the plea and setting the stage for a detailed examination of the inquiry process.
Senior advocate Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench that the family’s main concern was the lack of transparency and independence in the official investigation. “There has been a completely non-independent investigation,” he submitted, adding that the family had even been asked inappropriate questions about the pilot’s personal life. “It was deeply hurtful,” he said, explaining that such actions compounded the family’s grief.
He also drew the court’s attention to an article published in the Wall Street Journal, which cited unnamed government sources suggesting possible pilot error. These reports, he argued, had unfairly tarnished his son’s reputation and caused emotional distress to the family.
The court took note of the submission and said it would look into the matter carefully. It reassured the petitioner that the judiciary would not allow unverified claims or speculative reporting to overshadow facts or tarnish the memory of those who perished.
As the proceedings ended, there was a tone of compassion in the courtroom. The judges reiterated that the pilot’s name was clear, and that the tragedy should be remembered as a collective national loss, not as a matter of blame.
“The country mourns with you,” the bench said. Your son served with honor.”