Air India crash: Narrative blaming pilots made witnesses non‑responsive, probe panel tells SC

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, which is investigating the June 2025 Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad that killed 260 persons, told the Supreme Court that the “media speculation and narrative attributing blameworthiness to the pilots” had made some witnesses “restrictive and non‑responsive”, The Indian Express reported on Wednesday.

The bureau’s director general said in an affidavit that investigators were collecting evidence, and technical and forensic examination, “which is the core fact-finding stage”, the newspaper reported.

The investigation is expected to be completed within about six weeks and the draft final report may be ready by October, it added.

The affidavit was filed in response to a plea by Pushkarraj Sabharwal, the father of Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, the pilot-in-command. Pushkarraj Sabharwal and the Federation of Indian Pilots had moved the Supreme Court in October seeking a court-monitored judicial inquiry into the crash.

The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft, which was en route to London’s Gatwick airport from Ahmedabad, crashed 33 seconds after taking off on June 12, 2025. There were 242 persons aboard the aircraft. One passenger survived with impact injuries.

Nineteen persons were killed on the ground after the aircraft crashed into the hostel building of the BJ Medical College and Hospital in Ahmedabad.

The petitioners had contended that the preliminary findings of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau were “biased and incomplete”, and appeared to suggest pilot error while ignoring possible technical and systemic failures that warranted an independent probe.

In its preliminary report in July 2025, the bureau found that moments after the aircraft took off, its fuel control switches transitioned from “run” to “cut off” within a second of each other, because of which both engines shut down. The report said that one of the pilots could be heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he shut down the fuel, in response to which the other pilot said that he did not.

After about 10 seconds, the switches went back to the “run” position, in what appeared to be an attempt by the pilots to regain thrust in the engines. Subsequently, one of the engines progressed to recovery, and deceleration stopped. But deceleration could not be stopped on the second engine.

The Supreme Court judges hearing the matter in November had noted that the bureau’s preliminary report did not make any adverse findings against the pilot.

‘Narrative blaming pilots led to non-responsive witnesses’

In the affidavit filed on July 11, the bureau said that the investigators were at a stage where they were decoding the flight data recorder, collecting radar and air traffic control communications and maintenance records, among other details, and were consulting technical experts and the manufacturers. The phase had not concluded, it was quoted as saying by The Indian Express.

The authority said that speculation in the media and a narrative “attributing blameworthiness” to the pilots had “caused some witnesses to become restrictive and non-responsive”. This was the “kind of prejudice to the investigation that the confidentiality protections” under the 2025 Aircraft Investigation of Accidents and Incidents Rules were designed to prevent, it added.

The bureau said that according to the rules, unless the Union government decides otherwise, it cannot disclose statements recorded from persons by the investigators, communications, medical and private information, transcripts of the cockpit voice recordings and air traffic control data, and opinions expressed while analysing the information.

If witnesses and persons involved in the operation of the aircraft know that their statements may be disclosed in litigation or public proceedings, they will become unwilling to cooperate or provide guarded responses, which will hurt the investigation, the bureau was quoted as saying.

It also opposed a request for the cockpit voice recordings to be made public, saying it was “an absolute statutory prohibition”, The Indian Express reported.

Edited by Neerad Pandharipande.