The Madras High Court has asked India’s aviation regulator to clearly spell out whether it plans to continue the temporary relaxation granted to IndiGo from key pilot fatigue norms, raising fresh questions about how far safety rules can be stretched in the name of operational stability.
The query arose during a petition filed by a Chennai-based resident who has challenged the aviation regulator’s decision to excuse IndiGo from complying with specific portions of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) that deal with crew fatigue. These rules, revamped in 2024, introduced tighter limits on night flying, landings, and mandatory weekly rest for pilots.
At the heart of the dispute is an exemption issued to IndiGo for a certain category of aircraft, allowing the airline to sidestep parts of the new fatigue-management framework. The petitioner argues that such relaxations dilute non-negotiable safety standards and cannot be justified through administrative orders.
The Court observed that any interim relief could only be considered after hearing the airline itself, which is yet to formally participate in the proceedings. Meanwhile, the regulator told the Court that the exemption was a response to the airline’s immediate difficulty in implementing the revised norms, which had triggered widespread flight cancellations.
According to submissions recorded by the Court, strict enforcement of the updated fatigue rules had disrupted schedules and strained crew availability, prompting regulatory intervention to steady operations. The regulator maintained that the exemption was not meant to permanently weaken safety standards and that steps were underway to bring the airline back into full compliance.
Crucially, the Court has now directed the regulator to place on record whether it intends to extend this exemption beyond its existing срок. A detailed response is to be filed shortly, after which the matter will be taken up again.
The case unfolds against a backdrop of severe operational disruption for IndiGo, which had cancelled hundreds of flights over a short span. Reports linked the cancellations to challenges in meeting the stricter fatigue norms during the busy winter schedule.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the case touches a larger fault line in Indian aviation regulation: whether post-notification relaxations for individual airlines are legally permissible, especially when the underlying rules were framed after prolonged court-driven efforts to align India’s safety standards with global benchmarks.
With similar challenges pending elsewhere, the Madras High Court’s scrutiny could have implications well beyond a single airline—potentially shaping how firmly aviation safety norms are enforced when commercial pressures mount.
