AI in spotlight: Court battles, safety calls, recovery path

In the two months since the catastrophic crash of Air India flight AI-171, the Tata-group owned carrier has been caught in the crosscurrents of grief, litigation, official scrutiny, and its own urgent push for operational reform.

As families of victims pursue justice at home and abroad, the Supreme Court has drawn a firm line against attempts to single out the airline for blame — while the company itself undertakes one of the most intensive safety overhauls in its history.

On Friday, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) calling for the appointment of a retired Supreme Court judge to probe Air India’s safety practices.

The petition, filed in July by lawyer Narendera Kumar Goswami, demanded an independent review of the airline’s maintenance and operational systems, a fleet-wide safety audit by an International Civil Aviation Organization-accredited body, and the creation of a public database of aviation safety incidents.

It also sought compensation for the families of AI-171 crash victims under the Montreal Convention, 1999.

But the court was blunt in its response. “Why single out Air India, which has just suffered an unfortunate tragedy? If you truly seek a regulatory mechanism, why have you not made other airlines parties to the petition?”

Justice Kant asked, making clear that the judiciary would not allow the impression of a targeted campaign against a single carrier. Goswami was told to withdraw the petition and take his grievances to the appropriate forum.

On 12 June, the London-bound Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner lifted off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport carrying 241 passengers and crew. Within minutes, disaster struck. The aircraft crashed in the city’s Meghaninagar area, killing everyone on board except one — British national Viswash Kumar Ramesh from Diu.

Nineteen people on the ground also lost their lives, among them former Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani.

The preliminary report from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) revealed that both engine fuel control switches moved from ‘RUN’ to ‘CUTOFF’ within seconds of each other immediately after take-off, depriving the aircraft of thrust. A cockpit exchange captured one pilot asking the other why the fuel was cut; the reply was a flat denial.

For many, the report raised more questions than it answered.

Sixty-five families have now engaged US-based law firm Beasley Allen to represent them. Its Principal Attorney, Mike Andrews, who has handled major aviation disaster cases including the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX crash, is in Gujarat gathering evidence. His demand is unequivocal: full release of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) data.

“The preliminary report omits critical cockpit voice data and unfairly places the blame on the pilots,” Andrews told The Indian Express. He believes the case shares similarities with the Ethiopian Airlines crash in terms of automated system involvement and has not ruled out litigation against Boeing and component manufacturers if defects are established.

Ahmedabad-based entrepreneur Trupti Soni, who lost three family members in the crash, said her family intends to first sue Boeing in US courts before pursuing action against Air India. “We need clarity and accountability — from everyone responsible,” she said.

Meanwhile, Air India is attempting to steady itself in turbulent air. CEO and Managing Director Campbell Wilson has outlined a multi-year programme to retrofit and upgrade its aircraft. The airline’s 26 legacy Boeing 787-8s will be refurbished by June 2027, while its 27 Airbus A320 neos will be upgraded by September 2025.

The Tata Group-owned carrier is also working closely with Singapore Airlines, a 25.1 per cent stakeholder, to exchange best practices, strengthen engineering systems, and address spare parts shortages in collaboration with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).

In June, in the immediate aftermath of the crash, the airline initiated a voluntary “Safety Pause” — reducing its flight schedule to conduct extra pre-flight checks and engineering inspections. Under the Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s oversight, detailed examinations of the Boeing 787 and 737 fleets found no issues with the fuel control mechanisms that came under scrutiny in the crash report.

International operations began a phased resumption on 1 August, with full restoration planned for 1 October.

The AI-171 tragedy has become a defining moment for Air India — and for India’s aviation sector more broadly. On one front, families and international lawyers are pressing for transparency, technical data, and possible liability claims stretching across borders. On another, the airline is racing to reassure regulators, passengers, and its own employees that lessons are being acted upon swiftly.

For now, the nation’s oldest airline finds itself balancing the demands of courtroom accountability with the imperatives of operational renewal — both under the unforgiving gaze of public scrutiny.