CHENNAI: The Directorate General of Civil Aviation told the Delhi High Court on Friday that the mandatory weekly rest requirement for airline pilots remains non-negotiable and that no relaxation of this core safety norm has been granted to any airline. The submission came in response to a public interest petition challenging the regulator’s handling of the revised flight duty rules after widespread disruptions to airline schedules late last year.
At the hearing, DGCA counsel emphasised that the weekly rest provision continues to operate in full force and has not been withdrawn or diluted in any way, as reported by Bar and Bench on Friday. The regulator clarified that the only limited concession it had provided concerned night flying duties and that too was specifically and temporarily granted to one carrier only, with a clear end date in early February. The assurance was made before a bench of the High Court as part of its scrutiny of the aviation regulator’s decision to keep key safety rules in abeyance following operational challenges faced by airlines during the rollout of stricter crew duty norms, the report said.
In early December, the country's largest airline IndiGo was hit by severe operational turmoil as it struggled to transition to the newly enforced pilot duty and rest norms, triggering widespread cancellations and delays across its network. Over several days, the airline was forced to scrap hundreds of flights daily, stranding large numbers of passengers at major airports and prompting emergency schedule reductions as it worked to stabilise operations.
The backdrop to Friday’s court proceedings lies in a broader dispute over the implementation of the updated Flight Duty Time Limitation framework introduced in 2025 to reduce pilot fatigue. These norms, developed to align India’s aviation safety regime more closely with international standards, included tighter limits on duty hours, greater rest periods and restrictions on back-to-back night duties. When they came into effect, at least one major Indian carrier struggled to adapt its scheduling practices quickly, leading to thousands of flight cancellations and delays in December.
In light of those disruptions, the regulator issued communications easing certain requirements to allow carriers more flexibility while they adjusted rosters and hired additional crew. Petitioners challenged this approach, arguing that temporarily suspending or relaxing safety-related norms — especially without statutory authority or clear time frames — undermines regulatory mandate and passenger safety. They also contended that the aviation watchdog did not have the power to sideline formally notified regulations, and that such steps could set a dangerous precedent for future safety enforcement.
Before the High Court, the DGCA maintained that its limited adjustments were aimed solely at smoothing operational transition and did not affect the core requirement that pilots must receive their weekly rest. The regulator reiterated that it had not exempted any airline from this fundamental duty and that the rest mandate, which is intended to guard against fatigue and maintain safety margins, remained fully operative.
Legal counsel for the DGCA noted that the temporary reprieve extended for night operations was time-bound and designed to give airlines additional runway to comply with the rest of the revised framework. By contrast, the core weekly rest rule itself was left untouched and continues to be enforced under existing civil aviation requirements.
The High Court’s intervention signals heightened judicial scrutiny of how aviation safety norms are administered and balanced against industry pressures. In questioning the regulator’s actions, the court posed probing questions about why certain relaxations had been framed without definitive deadlines and why key provisions had been kept in abeyance in response to industry stress. It also directed both the DGCA and the carrier involved to formally respond to the petition’s broader arguments in the coming weeks.
Industry observers say the case highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory safety imperatives and operational realities for airlines that operate on tight crew rosters and thin cost structures. The dispute also sheds light on the challenges inherent in enforcing fatigue-mitigation rules in one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation markets.
For the broader flying public, the case touches on fundamental issues of flight safety and corporate accountability. Pilot fatigue has long been recognised as a critical risk factor in aviation, and regulators worldwide have moved toward stricter duty-time limitations to protect both crew and passengers. By underlining that weekly rest rules remain in force, the DGCA has sought to reassure the court and the public that safety standards will not be compromised, even as it works with carriers to ensure smoother compliance.
What remains to be seen is how the High Court weighs these competing concerns of safety, regulatory authority and practical implementation — and whether this latest legal challenge will prompt refinements in how aviation norms are phased in and enforced across India’s commercial airlines.