An airline in the dock

India’s worst aviation disruption in recent years-IndiGo’s sweeping cancellations in early December 2025-has exposed not only the airline’s internal fragilities but also long-standing ambiguities in the Directorate General of Civil Aviation’s enforcement posture. What played out between December 2 and 5, when cancellations surged past 1,600 flights in a single day, was not an unforeseen operational stumble. It was the predictable outcome of a system that has repeatedly tolerated thin staffing margins, inconsistent oversight, and a regulatory framework that tightens rules without ensuring industry readiness. The DGCA now finds itself navigating two competing imperatives: signaling regulatory authority and preventing the collapse of a carrier that handles more than 60 percent of India’s domestic traffic. Its decision to delay penalties against IndiGo is officially tied to an ongoing inquiry. Yet this cautious approach also reflects an uncomfortable truth-the regulator’s own oversight systems may have failed to detect or pre-empt the crew shortages triggered by Phase II of the revised Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) norms, implemented in November. A multi-member panel will seek answers to questions such as- Did IndiGo knowingly underprepare for the rest and duty limitations? Did the DGCA adequately assess crew availability before mandating compliance? Also how did early warning signs-visible in rostering deficits flagged months earlier-escape escalation? The panel has 15 days to deliver its findings, which could lead to fines of up to ₹1 crore or operating restrictions. However, until that report surfaces, the regulator has reverted to crisis-containment mode rather than punitive enforcement. However, the rollback of the “weekly rest” clause on December 5-effectively softening a rule the regulator had only recently tightened-signalled that the DGCA was willing to recalibrate its own norms to ease pressure on an overwhelmed airline. Night-landing requirements were similarly relaxed until February 10. These steps may have stabilized operations, but they raise a deeper question- Why were rules introduced without ensuring that the industry, especially its largest carrier, could comply without systemic breakdown? IndiGo has acknowledged operational failings, admitting that its planning for FDTL Phase II was inadequate despite legal and regulatory deadlines. However, the airline’s contrition masks a more structural issue-its reliance on high utilization rates and lean staffing, a model that delivers efficiency until the system encounters stress. The airline’s pledge to accelerate hiring and revise schedules is now being monitored through fortnightly reports mandated by the DGCA. Observers -especially pilot bodies-argue that the DGCA’s response fits a familiar pattern: flexibility during crisis, scrutiny only after public fallout, and little appetite for structural corrections. The suspension of four DGCA inspectors for oversight failures and the decision to embed monitoring teams inside IndiGo indicate that the regulator recognizes its own lapses. The ordered 10 percent cut in IndiGo’s schedule, too, suggests systemic strain rather than mere mismanagement. Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have framed the regulatory easing as evidence of favoritism linked to IndiGo’s market dominance and its parent company InterGlobe’s electoral bond contributions. A parliamentary committee has summoned DGCA officials, and the Delhi High Court has openly questioned regulatory vigilance while directing IndiGo to compensate passengers. The DGCA’s justification for extending certain FDTL exemptions until February 2026-as crisis-management rather than concession-will likely face greater interrogation as investigations proceed. The coming weeks will reveal whether the DGCA’s inquiry delivers accountability or simply distributes blame across familiar fault lines.