Author: Piyush Shenoy, St. Aloysius (Deemed to be University), School of Law
To the Point
On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad en route to London. The crash resulted in the loss of 241 passengers and crew onboard, along with 19 fatalities on the ground. Preliminary findings by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) suggested that a dual engine shutdown occurred due to manual manipulation of the fuel control switches. The tragedy reopened discussions about the adequacy of airline liability mechanisms, regulatory oversight by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and manufacturer design responsibility under international aviation and tort law frameworks.
Abstract
The Air India Flight 171 disaster constituted India’s deadliest aviation accident in recent years. The AAIB’s initial report indicated that the engines were shut down mid-flight via the fuel cutoff switches, although no definitive mechanical fault was found. Legal developments quickly unfolded, both in India and abroad, as families sought compensation under the Montreal Convention. The disaster triggered investigations into possible negligence, procedural failure, or sabotage. This article analyses the incident from a legal lens, highlighting the application of international treaties, Indian civil aviation statutes, and the rights of aggrieved families.
Use of Legal Jargon
Strict Liability: Under Article 21 of the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable for passenger death or injury during international carriage, irrespective of fault.
Product Liability: Manufacturer responsibility for harm caused by defective or unsafe products. In this case, potential design or system interface flaws in Boeing aircraft.
Vicarious Liability: The principle that employers (Air India) are responsible for the actions of their employees (the flight crew).
Proximate Cause: A legal test to determine whether the conduct (manual fuel cutoff) directly led to the injury (crash).
International Jurisdiction: Article 33 of the Montreal Convention allows families to sue the airline in multiple jurisdictions, including the destination country.
Negligence per se: Breach of statutory duty (e.g., aircraft operation protocol) which automatically establishes liability.
The Proof
The AAIB’s July 2025 preliminary report confirmed that the cockpit voice recorder captured conversations between pilots debating why the fuel cutoff switches had been triggered. One pilot was heard denying activation, while the other asked why the engines were failing. Investigators found both fuel switches in the OFF position, despite no mechanical or software error being present in the engine systems.
The Indian Commercial Pilots’ Association contested the immediate assignment of blame to the cockpit crew, alleging procedural lapses in the investigation and the absence of alternate hypotheses such as sabotage or electrical malfunction. Aviation experts pointed to the unique placement and design of the Dreamliner’s fuel switch panel, which may have allowed unintentional activation. Legal observers noted that Air India, regardless of fault, would be held strictly liable under the Montreal Convention for compensation up to 1,31,100 SDR per passenger.
Meanwhile, multiple families in the UK filed wrongful death claims in English courts against both Air India and Boeing. These proceedings were facilitated by Article 33 of the Montreal Convention, which permits jurisdiction in the country of destination. Allegations ranged from failure to maintain safe aircraft operations to latent design flaws in the aircraft interface.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was admitted by the Supreme Court of India, seeking an independent probe, systemic reforms in aviation safety protocols, and accountability of the DGCA. The Court issued notices to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, DGCA, and Air India, seeking compliance reports and immediate corrective actions.
Case Laws and Statutory Provisions
Montreal Convention, 1999 (Article 21) – Establishes airline liability for death or injury during international flights without requiring proof of fault.
Montreal Convention, 1999 (Article 33) – Enables legal action in the destination country.
Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A (U.S.) – Manufacturer liability for defective products that reach the consumer without substantial change.
Aircraft Act, 1934 & Aircraft Rules, 1937 – Provide the DGCA’s regulatory authority and operational guidelines for Indian carriers.
Supreme Court PIL (2025) – The court’s intervention mandates institutional accountability and reforms in aviation safety governance.
Conclusion
The Air India Flight 171 crash served as a harsh reminder of aviation’s dependence on flawless coordination among machine design, pilot conduct, and regulatory enforcement. While the AAIB’s report offered preliminary insight, full liability determination awaited final findings. Nonetheless, legal obligations under international treaties and domestic statutes ensured that families were not left uncompensated. The ongoing litigation in both Indian and foreign courts, combined with Supreme Court monitoring, might mark a turning point for India’s aviation regulatory ecosystem.
FAQS
Is Air India liable even if the crash was caused by pilot error?
Yes. Under the Montreal Convention, liability applies even in the absence of proven fault.
Can Boeing be sued by victims’ families?
Yes, if design flaws or inadequate warnings contributed to the crash, Boeing can be held jointly liable under product liability laws.
Why are UK courts involved in the case?
Because the destination of Flight 171 was London, and Article 33 of the Montreal Convention allows jurisdiction there.
What legal reforms can result from this crash?
Possible reforms include independent aviation safety boards, standardized cockpit protocols, and greater transparency in accident investigations.
Can Indian regulators be held responsible?
Yes. If DGCA oversight is found lacking, administrative negligence claims can be raised through PILs and court directives.
