New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday issued a notice to the DGCA and the civil aviation ministry on an Indian Pilots Guild (IPG) contempt plea alleging the regulator granted airlines relaxations in implementing new Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) norms, and approved carrier-specific proposals that violated court orders.
The contempt plea was filed on 11 December, days after the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) withdrew its instructions prohibiting substitution of leave for weekly rest for airline crew as IndiGo cancelled or delayed hundreds of flights, leading to airport chaos and passenger inconvenience.
Taking cognisance of the plea, filed by advocates Prerna Kohli and Neetika Bajaj on behalf of the IPG, Justice Amit Sharma Tuesday issued notices to the DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), seeking their responses.
The contempt petition has been filed against the civil aviation ministry and DGCA Director-General Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, who has been serving the post since January.
The petition seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the DGCA and MoCA for what the petition terms their “wilful and deliberate non-compliance” with the Delhi High Court’s orders passed in February and April 2025.
The next date of hearing will be in April 2026.
Also Read: IndiGo chaos forces DGCA to look inward—spotlight is back on the regulator
FDTL controversy
The Indian Pilots’ Guild, formed in 1948, is a union representing Air India pilots deployed on wide-bodied aircraft such as Boeing 777 and 787, which are primarily used for long-haul international operations.
The foundation of the present legal dispute dates back to September 2019, when the IPG filed a writ petition challenging the validity of a section of Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR), dated April 24, 2019, that dealt with Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL).
The primary concern raised by the pilots’ body was that the 2019 CAR significantly reduced mandatory rest periods for pilots and crew as compared to the 2011 CAR, thereby posing serious risks to flight and passenger safety.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the regulatory framework continued to evolve, with the DGCA issuing revised versions of the FDTL CAR in 2023 and again in 2024.
Between October 2024 and January 2025, the DGCA, as per records, held several stakeholder meetings involving airline representatives and pilot associations to deliberate on the implementation of the revised CAR.
Pilot bodies consistently pressed for immediate implementation of the new rules in the interest of safety, opposing the phased approach proposed by airlines that relied on the Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS).
According to the pilots’ associations, the FRMS was not part of the existing Indian regulatory framework.
A significant development occurred on 23 January 2025 when the Delhi High Court directed the DGCA to file a detailed affidavit outlining the provisions and timelines for implementing the 2024 FDTL CAR in a phased manner.
The DGCA filed an affidavit on 19 February, stating that the CAR 2024 would be implemented in two phases. Phase I involved the implementation of 15 clauses by 1 July, while Phase II entailed the implementation of the remaining seven clauses by November 1.
The High Court accepted these undertakings, and formally incorporated them into its order dated 24 February 2025. Thereafter, on 7 April, the court disposed of the main 2019 writ petition, observing that the notification process for CAR 2024 was already underway.
The court also directed Air India and other airlines concerned to submit their respective FDTL Schemes to the DGCA within three weeks. Importantly, the court granted the petitioners explicit “liberty to approach the appropriate forum” in the event of any non-compliance.
Alleged deviations
The Indian Pilots Guild has alleged that, despite the undertakings recorded by the court, the DGCA granted “extensions, relaxations and approvals of airline-specific FDTL Schemes” that “diluted” the court-approved framework and implementation timelines.
According to the IPG, between 29 October and 5 December, the DGCA approved several airline-specific FDTL schemes submitted by Air India, IndiGo, Akasa Air, SpiceJet, Alliance Air, Blue Dart, and Quikjet.
These approvals allegedly contained variations and exemptions that deviated from the model framework placed before the court. The pilots’ body contends that these deviations amounted to “wilful non-compliance” with the High Court’s directions dated 24 February and 7 April.
Specific instances of ‘non-compliance’
The petition cites several examples of alleged deviations. These include the DGCA accepting proposals allowing extended maximum Flight Time and Flight Duty Periods (FDP) under unforeseen operational circumstances, exceeding the limits it had earlier undertaken to adopt. Certain approvals reportedly permitted Flight Time extensions of up to 1.5 hours and FDP extensions of up to three hours.
They should not be more than one hour and two hours, respectively.
The IPG also pointed to a letter issued by the DGCA on 5 December, withdrawing an instruction that stipulated “no leave shall be substituted for weekly rest” for all operators, which the pilots’ body claims undermines mandated rest periods.
Further, the DGCA is alleged to have approved schemes granting relaxations in specific clauses, including Transportation Time (Clause 10.5) and Post Ultra Long Range (ULR) Flight Rest Period (Clause 15.5.2).
According to the petitioner, these actions were taken “without obtaining leave of the Court or re-engaging with the pilot bodies”, thereby undermining the core objective of the FDTL CAR – addressing pilot fatigue and ensuring flight safety.
In response to these developments, the Indian Pilots Guild issued a formal notice to the Director General on 1 November—the deadline for Phase II implementation—seeking immediate withdrawal of all non-compliant variations and exemptions.
When no corrective action followed, the IPG filed the present contempt petition on 11 December, invoking Article 215 (punishment for contempt) of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: DGCA is at fault for creating an airline that was ‘too big to fail’