DGCA public trust doctrine is not an abstract legal phrase. It is the regulator’s own written promise that every power it holds in aviation comes from the people and must be used to protect them, not any airline.
In the backdrop of the IndiGo mess, and now viral videos that appear to show IndiGo personnel sitting at DGCA officers’ computers, that promise looks brutally fragile. What India saw as “cancellations” and “crew shortage” was really a stress test of the DGCA public trust doctrine. The system failed that test.
This article looks at what the doctrine actually demands, how the IndiGo crisis collided with it, and why images of private airline staff at DGCA terminals cut straight to the heart of regulatory legitimacy.
1. What the DGCA public trust doctrine really says
The DGCA public trust doctrine is set out in the Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. It states that:
-
Powers held by government officers originate with the people.
-
These powers are delegated only to exercise governance in good faith.
-
Public power is not for personal gain or favour; it must be used to minimise harm and hazards and maximise benefits to the public.
-
Any exercise of power contrary to this doctrine is an abuse of power and a violation of the rule of law.
In other words, the DGCA public trust doctrine acknowledges that the regulator is a trustee, not an ally of airlines. Every decision on oversight, exemptions, and enforcement should be traceable to public benefit: safer skies, fair treatment of passengers, and honest handling of risk.
That is the theory. IndiGo’s December meltdown showed us the practice.
2. IndiGo meltdown as a test of DGCA public trust doctrine
When FDTL Phase 2 (new fatigue rules for pilots) came into force, the goal was straightforward: align India a bit closer to science-based limits on pilot duty and rest.
IndiGo, the largest domestic airline, struggled. Flights began to disappear from departure boards. The official narrative was “crew shortages” and “operational reasons”. Passengers got refunds “as per DGCA rules”, but not compensation for shattered plans.
Under the DGCA public trust doctrine, this is the moment where the regulator should step in firmly:
-
Verify whether the airline’s scheduling and crew planning met the new fatigue rules.
-
Intervene early to prevent mass cancellations.
-
Put the public interest ahead of one airline’s commercial choices.
Instead, we saw:
-
A 1 December “clarification” meeting between IndiGo, DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
-
No published minutes of that meeting.
-
Continued, large-scale cancellations even after the minister publicly claimed operations had “stabilised”.
-
A later move to post DGCA officials inside IndiGo’s corporate office to “monitor” the situation.
The IndiGo crisis did not just stress test operations. It stress-tested the DGCA public trust doctrine, and the doctrine came out looking theoretical rather than real.
3. DGCA public trust doctrine vs private access to regulators’ computers
Into this already fragile context came something even more alarming: videos circulating online that appear to show IndiGo personnel operating computers in DGCA’s office.
Only a forensic investigation can prove exactly what those videos contain. But if IndiGo staff truly had unhindered access to DGCA officers’ terminals, the DGCA public trust doctrine is not just being tested; it is being mocked.
A regulator’s internal systems are extensions of its legal powers. They may contain:
-
Inspection reports and audit notes on airlines.
-
Draft show-cause notices and enforcement options.
-
Internal correspondence about safety concerns, fatigue risk and exemptions.
-
Sensitive whistleblower information.
Under the DGCA public trust doctrine, such systems must be protected from precisely the entities they regulate. If airline staff can sit at those machines, click through menus, or even see internal screens, the public has every reason to ask:
-
Who is really in control – the trustee or the beneficiary?
-
Can any enforcement decision against that airline be trusted as independent?
-
What chance does a whistleblower have if the subject of their complaint may be able to see inside the regulator’s systems?
Perception matters. Even the appearance of IndiGo staff using DGCA computers is poison for the DGCA public trust doctrine.
https://x.com/flyingamit/status/2000449767126737151?s=20
4. How the IndiGo mess fits a wider pattern of capture
The IndiGo meltdown and the computer-access videos are not isolated incidents. They sit on top of a longer pattern that repeatedly strains the DGCA public trust doctrine.
Key elements of that pattern include:
-
Market dominance
IndiGo controls a huge share of domestic capacity and critical city pairs. When IndiGo sells schedules, the market aligns around them. When IndiGo cancels, the whole system shakes. This “too big to fail” status gives the airline leverage over how rules are applied. -
Control of the pilot pipeline
Through branded, high-cost cadet programmes and future MPL structures, IndiGo has enormous influence over training and careers. Young pilots and families carry crore-level debt tied to one employer. That financial captivity weakens the human layer that is supposed to report fatigue and push back on unsafe practices. -
Flexibility in fatigue rules
FDTL rules have been drafted, softened, and put under abeyance more than once. The push toward FRMS, when misused, risks becoming a tool to re-open margins that science-based rules tried to close. Each retreat chips away at the DGCA public trust doctrine.
When you place the IndiGo mess on this background, the regulator’s own doctrine looks less like a guiding principle and more like a brochure line.
5. What the DGCA public trust doctrine demands now
If we take the doctrine seriously, the IndiGo episode and the videos of IndiGo personnel at DGCA computers logically demand four things.
5.1 Full transparency on the 1 December meeting
The DGCA public trust doctrine cannot coexist with secrecy on a meeting where a dominant airline, the regulator and the ministry discussed the implementation of national safety rules in the middle of a meltdown.
Minimum action:
-
Publish the complete minutes of the 1 December IndiGo–DGCA–MoCA “clarification” meeting, subject only to narrowly defined security redactions.
-
Release a timeline detailing when IndiGo first indicated difficulty with FDTL Phase 2, what data it provided, and how DGCA responded.
Without this, every future citation of the DGCA public trust doctrine will ring hollow.
5.2 Independent investigation of access to DGCA computers
If images of IndiGo personnel using DGCA computers are even partly accurate, the DGCA public trust doctrine is directly implicated.
Required steps:
-
Immediate securing and forensic imaging of the machines shown.
-
Audit of all user accounts, access privileges, and log-in records.
-
Public statement specifying:
-
Whether airline staff ever used DGCA terminals.
-
Under what authority and for what purpose.
-
What data they could or could not access.
-
Only an independent technical and legal audit, not an internal memo, can restore confidence that the DGCA public trust doctrine still means something in practice.
5.3 Structural firewalls between DGCA and IndiGo
To live up to the DGCA public trust doctrine, the regulator must rebuild visible and invisible barriers:
-
No airline personnel at DGCA workstations, and strict control over physical presence in sensitive rooms.
-
Clear separation between DGCA’s monitoring role inside IndiGo’s office and any operational decision-making by the airline.
-
Robust conflict-of-interest rules and cooling-off periods for senior staff moving between DGCA and major airlines.
The goal is not hostility, but professional distance worthy of a public trustee.
6. How citizens and institutions should respond
The DGCA public trust doctrine is not just internal guidance. It is a standard that courts, Parliament and citizens can use to judge the regulator.
Practical steps:
-
Courts can test DGCA’s conduct in the IndiGo mess against its own doctrine when hearing writs or public interest petitions on cancellations, FDTL application, or FRMS approvals.
-
The Competition Commission of India can examine whether IndiGo’s behaviour during the meltdown, coupled with regulatory flexibility, amounts to abuse of dominance in a way that undermines public trust.
-
Parliamentary committees can call DGCA and IndiGo to explain, on record, how the DGCA public trust doctrine was honoured or violated when thousands of passengers were stranded and when access to regulator systems was allegedly given to airline staff.
7. Conclusion: reclaiming the DGCA public trust doctrine
At its best, the DGCA public trust doctrine is a powerful idea. It says:
-
The sky is a commons.
-
The law that keeps it safe belongs to the people.
-
The regulator holds its powers only as a trustee.
The IndiGo meltdown, the opaque 1 December meeting, and the circulating videos of IndiGo personnel at DGCA computers together raise a harsh question:
Is DGCA still acting as a trustee of public safety, or has it drifted into the role of embedded adviser to its largest licensee?
Reclaiming the DGCA public trust doctrine now requires more than quotes in manuals. It demands visible actions: transparency, independent investigation, firewalls, and genuine accountability.
Until that happens, every citizen who boards an aircraft is entitled to ask, very plainly:
When things go wrong, whose side will DGCA really be on – the public that owns the sky, or the airline that dominates it?
Leave a Reply