Congress, DMK form alliance for 2016 Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, seat sharing formula soon

New Delhi: IndiGo, India’s largest airline, faced major operational turbulence this week after failing to prepare for new pilot-fatigue regulations issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The stricter rules—designed to improve flight safety—took effect in phases through 2024, with the latest implementation on November 1. IndiGo has acknowledged that inadequate roster planning led to widespread cancellations and delays.

Below are the key DGCA rules that affected IndiGo’s operations:

1. Longer Mandatory Weekly Rest

Weekly rest for pilots has been increased from 36 hours to 48 hours.

The government says the extended break is essential to curb cumulative fatigue. This rule remains in force despite the current crisis.

2. Cap on Night Landings

Pilots can now perform only two night landings per week—a steep reduction from the earlier limit of six.

Night hours, defined as midnight to early morning, are considered the least alert period for pilots.

Given the disruptions, this rule has been temporarily relaxed for IndiGo until February 10.

3. Reduced Maximum Night Flight Duty

Flight duty that stretches into the night is now capped at 10 hours.

This measure has also been kept on hold for IndiGo until February 10 to stabilize operations.

4. Weekly Rest Cannot Be Replaced With Personal Leave

Airlines can no longer count a pilot’s personal leave as part of the mandatory 48-hour rest.

Pilots say this closes a loophole that previously reduced actual rest time.

Currently, all airlines are exempt from this rule to normalise travel.

5. Mandatory Fatigue Monitoring

Airlines must submit quarterly fatigue reports along with corrective actions to DGCA.

This system aims to create a transparent fatigue-tracking framework across the industry.

The DGCA has stressed that these rules were crafted to strengthen flight safety and align India with global fatigue-management standards. The temporary relaxations are expected to remain until February 2025, giving IndiGo time to stabilise its schedules and restore normal air travel.

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.