Supreme Court Clarifies Air India AI 171 Crash Report: Pilot Not at Fault

On 7 November 2025, the Supreme Court of India told the father of the late Captain Sumeet Sabharwal that the preliminary investigation into the crash of Air India Flight 171 does not blame his son. The remarks came during a hearing on a petition filed by Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, who is seeking a judicially monitored investigation into the crash. Justice Surya Kant told him directly: “Nobody can blame him for anything. There is no question.”

The accident, which killed more than 260 people on 12 June 2025 shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, is the deadliest in Indian aviation history. The court’s remarks address how the preliminary report from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has been interpreted — the investigation itself remains open, and the court did not issue a formal finding on the crash’s cause.

What the Supreme Court said about Pilot Liability in Case of AI 171?

Air India Flight 171 crashed on 12 June 2025 shortly after take‑off from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (AMD), Ahmedabad. The aircraft was bound for one of the busiest airports in the world – London Heathrow (LHR).

The accident led to the loss of lives of over 250 people, and the matter in the Supreme Court of India involves a petition “seeking a judicially monitored investigation into the crash“, reported The Hindu, where the words of senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (who is also the petitioner) contended that the preliminary findings of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) were “biased and incomplete”. A case was made that the investigation report insinuated Captain Sumeet Sabharwal’s error as the reason behind the crash.

The investigation report read:

“In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”

Touching upon this part of the investigation report, Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked:

“There is just a mention of the cockpit recorder where one pilot asks your son whether he turned off a switch and your son answers in the negative. That is all there is in the report. The main purpose of the investigation is to ensure such incidents do not recur.”

It was reported in The Indian Express, Justice Surya Kant, on the other hand, issued to following statement to the petitioner:

“It’s extremely unfortunate that this accident took place, and this gentleman lost his son. But he should not carry this burden that his son is being accused or blamed or anything… Report also, that language, if at all it is creating this kind of wrong impression, we will clarify. Nobody can blame him for anything. There is no question,”

Did the crash and immediate investigation of AI 171 blame the pilot?

According to the Investigation report, at 08:08:33 UTC, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner involved in the accident crossed the take-off decision speed V1 and achieved 153 kts IAS. At 08:08:35, the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) data pointed to the Vr speed (155 kts). It was also reported that the aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff at 08:08:39 UTC. The report further says:

“The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off. In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”

The initial report doesn’t mention the probable causes of the accident, nor does it mention whom the blame of the accident can be attributed to. At the time of the publication of the report, The EAFR data was being analyzed in detail, and based on the initial leads, additional details were being gathered. Here are snippets of the progress at the time the report was published:

• Engines recovered from the crash site and secured in a hangar at the airport for further examination.

• No specific actions or directives recommended for operators of the Boeing 787‑8 or the GE GEnx‑1B engines, nor for their manufacturers.

• The investigation team actively reviewing additional evidence, records, and information being requested from relevant stakeholders.

Despite the fact that the preliminary report did not show if any of the pilots cut-off the engine supply. The Wall Street Journal, however, is said to have insinuated that the pilot was at fault for the crash of AI 171 as the publication citied people familiar with US officials’ early analysis of AI 171’s evidence:

“The first officer who was flying the Boeing 787 Dreamliner asked the more-experienced captain why he moved the switches to the “cutoff” position after it climbed off the runway, these people said…The first officer expressed surprise and then panicked, these people said, while the captain seemed to remain calm.”

The publication further claimed that when a press officer for India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation and AAIB were asked to comment on their piece, they labelled it one-sided and refused any offers for commentary. The Telegraph Online, on the other hand, cited aviation experts assessment that the investigation carried out by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has language that “appears carefully chosen”:

“The report states the switches “transitioned” from run to cutoff, a phrasing that, while technically correct, implies human action without stating it outright. Multiple pilots have said the switches cannot move on their own. They point out that the one-second lag between the two switches being flipped is consistent with manual operation.”

Perhaps it was this insinuation made by WSJ that prompted the petitioners to draw attention to a fraction of people trying to apportion the blame to the pilots. The Bench at the Supreme Court advised the petitioners to not pay attention to such allegations:

“Then your suit should have been against the Wall Street Journal in an American court….We are not bothered by foreign reports. Your remedy should then be before a foreign court…That is nasty reporting. No one in India believes it was the pilot’s fault.”