The Supreme Court has voiced strong concern over what it described as “nasty reporting” by sections of the foreign media that attributed the Air India Boeing Dreamliner crash to pilot error. The tragedy, which occurred on June 12 and claimed 260 lives, has now prompted the court to issue a notice to the Centre in response to a plea filed by the father of one of the deceased pilots, Commander Sumeet Sabharwal.
According to a news report, a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued the notice on a petition filed by Pushkar Raj Sabharwal, who is seeking an independent investigation into the crash. The judges observed that the matter deserved careful consideration, particularly in light of the distress caused by foreign reports casting aspersions on the pilot’s role in the accident.
“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,” Justice Kant told Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for the bereaved father.
During the hearing, Sankaranarayanan drew the court’s attention to Rule 12 of the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, stressing that it mandates an independent probe by the Centre.
“That has not happened. What has happened is a preliminary investigation under Rule 9,” he argued.
Representing the pilot’s father, he added, “I am the father of the Commander of the plane… I am 91 years old. This is a non-independent investigation. It should have been independent. It has taken four months.”
Justice Bagchi, however, pointed out that the investigation report contained “no insinuation against the pilot.”
Referring to specific excerpts, he was quoted as saying, “See page 202… It just records a cockpit recorder which says one pilot enquires of the other: ‘Have you switched off the fuel switch?’, and he says ‘No’. So, there’s no question of the report apportioning blame, and, in fact, the Rules and the AIB investigation are not to apportion blame. It’s to propose better performance and the avoidance of such accidents in the future. Where is the cause of action in this writ petition?”
The senior counsel then mentioned that, despite the confidential nature of the investigation, The Wall Street Journal had published a report “based on information they have got from this investigation.” Justice Bagchi reportedly responded, “We are not bothered about what a foreign press reports.”
