CHENNAI: The Madras HC has sought to know from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) whether the exemption granted to IndiGo Airlines from certain flight crew duty and fatigue management norms under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) will be extended beyond the stipulated period, in the wake of large-scale flight cancellations and delays.
The query was raised by Justice V Lakshminarayan while hearing a petition filed by Chennai-based Y R Rajaveni, who has challenged the exemption granted to InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which operates IndiGo, from compliance with prescribed fatigue management norms for flight crews.
The court directed the DGCA, represented by ASG A R L Sundaresan, to file a counter-affidavit by January 5, 2026, specifically stating whether it proposes to extend the exemption granted on December 5 for a further period. The matter has been posted for further hearing on January 6.
According to the petitioner, the DGCA had exempted IndiGo from complying with paragraphs 3.11 and 6.14 of the CAR, which relate to limits on night operations, landings and weekly rest for crew members, with respect to a particular class of aircraft. It was contended that the December 5 exemption order was contrary to the Aircraft Rules, 1937, as Rule 133A(1) stipulates that any order issued under Rule 133A(4) cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934.
Opposing the plea, the ASG submitted that the safeguards contained in clauses 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the CAR were sufficient to ensure the safety of both crew and passengers. He pointed out that the night duty restriction under clause 6.4 was introduced only in November 2025 and that IndiGo’s systems were not equipped to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime. This, he said, led to a spate of flight cancellations. As a short-term measure, clause 6.1.4 alone was suspended until February 10, 2026.
The ASG further argued that the hardship likely to be caused to the travelling public by strict enforcement of the rule at this stage would be far greater than that arising from a temporary exemption.
Casting doubts on the bona fides of the petitioner, the ASG contended that the writ petition did not stem from any genuine passenger grievance and alleged that it was a “stage-managed” litigation instigated by rival airlines or pilots’ associations.