Privatisation, Profits, and the Price of Lives: Unpacking the Ahmedabad Plane Crash of 2025

The catastrophic plane crash on 13-6-2025, has hurled the nation into a pandemonium. Such accidents reflect imperfections in the administration of the aviation industry in the face of technological advancements and amendments to expand and enhance the efficiency of aerial infrastructure. The events are unduly recent, and without a detailed, established exploration, it would be unreasonable to suggest systemic failure, but some questions about the adequacy of maintenance procedures and the replies of the emergency response systems are coming to the forefront. The tragedy that was reported during the afternoon of 13 June is not an isolated incident; there is an unfortunate historical resonance, from the catastrophic Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision in 1996 to the Kozhikode runway incident in 2020. The growing cases of flight malfunctions and adverse system malfunctions not only leave behind loss and trauma but also unresolved legal and policy issues that demand urgent attention.

Contemporary cases

The recent plane crash in Ahmedabad has given rise to the discussion over the structural repercussions of the privatisation of the aviation sector in terms of efficiency and competitiveness in the collapsing economy across the country. This has often led to deleterious implications for consumers’ satisfaction and safety standards. The State was primarily liable to regulate the functioning of the airline industry and strike a balance between the nation’s interest and safety, as it was earlier State-owned and regulated. The Government is obligated to the people if it draws itself towards the domain of maximisation of profit. The privatisation of the aviation industry stemmed from the inefficient, bureaucracy-stricken airline that destabilised fiscal sustainability. However, the inclination towards cost-efficiency and wealth maximisation over rigid safety standards emanated from demonetisation in the early 1990s. The privatisation of the airline industry, including the former capital withdrawal of Air India in 2022, reflects a drop in technical malfunctions, emergency landings, and narrow-escape accidents in its data. Despite the fact that privatisation acts as a primary indicator of modernisation, a vital industry as aviation, which is entrusted with the security of countless lives, should work under stringent State supervision to retain the integrity of airspace under national jurisdiction.

The relentless gaps in preserving the integrity have become more evident after the devastating Ahmedabad plane crash. Early probes raised serious questions of vicarious liability under the India’s Aircraft Act, 1934¹, and the Aircraft Rules, 1937², as well as under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944³, on account of lapses in routine checks and systemic adherence to regulatory processes. Supervisory bodies, such as the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), often lack the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against private actors who do not comply with the rules and regulations, due to lobbying and political pressure.

Global perspective

Most private carriers, especially low-cost operators, routinely contravene or adopt flexible approaches to compliance with Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) published under Rule 133-A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937⁴—many are now operating on seriously limited margins. Global evidence of the erosion of safety culture within privatised airlines often indicates very poor managerial accountability to the consequences of their explicit decision-making in a pursuit of financial performance; that is to say, Boards and managers did not seem to think it fit to question the substance of various corporate practices in a drive for profit, and using qualitative (rather than quantitative) evidence to measure safety within organisation occupational health and safety measures, and operational procedures, along with now increasing managerial regulatory adherence is sometimes a factor in successful transports health safety equipment to health workers within infectious disease circumstances mirrored in the Boeing 737 MAX, in which corporate decisions by Board members to obfuscate agreed noises for malfunction caused with software defects which resulted in 346 commodity deaths which led to significant legal proceedings and changes to how the market would judge such accountability in global contexts.

Shifting legal perspectives in light of privatisation will require a reassessment of the legal liability framework governing aviation safety. The Montreal Convention⁵ (1999), the clauses of the treaty which oversee the international aviation-related issues such as air carriage, put a restriction upon airlines using carriages incompatible for commercial use. These regulations remain absent in domestic legislatures. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019⁶, and tort laws have not seen major amendments due to their procedural complexity, although growing incidents due to technological shortcomings demand one. The Ahmedabad’s tragic crash demands a reform in legislative reform, liberating the working of the DGCA. These reforms would catalyse a regulation that supports regular mandatory safety audits and that is transferable and holds public accountability. These novel amendments must not deflect from the substantial enforcement of practical applications of both domestic and international law to the most remote demographics of the country. The procrastination in making the foremost amendment in the aviation law for the interest of the public good in the exchange of abnormal profits reflects democracy as a victim of economic interest. The tragedy is a reminder of the vicious infliction of the neoliberal state of affairs. The deteriorating situation of consumer rights without a robust regulatory and legal framework that promises institutional accountability will also fade to enforce the relevance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India⁷.

Boeing has witnessed several malfunctions in the past and has suffered 26 crashes since the early 200s and has been accountable for more than 2000 fatalities. The reasons that stem from these crashes are naturally beyond the human capacity. The casualties that have been reported by Boeing contradict the above and underline the shortcomings in the core business strategy and management. The clear leverage towards super profits over human safety can no longer be overshadowed by accidents.

Investigating previous accidents dating from 24-3-2024 to 9-4-2025, the reports have suggested only technical failures. The aviation company has described all these failures in correlation with human error. Most of the carriages that witnessed engine failures belong to Boeing Serial Numbers 737 to 800. In addition, recently, the number of airline tragedies has increased. Recently, the helicopter that crashed indicates the identical circumstances, although official reports are yet to be released.

The notable few other similar incidents, which were aborted or near misses, only disorient the picture. The carriages that have suffered the most accidents source back to the supply chain of Boeing and its parent company. The intention of the private sector has always revolved around profits and defending lawsuits, but the Government’s position on the assembly line over human safety is baffling. The speculation over Boeing’s suffering grave speculation is evident, and it is dragging the Government into the limelight too, for true reasons must be decided by its citizens.

Whistleblower in the aviation sector

In March 2019, John Barnett, a whistleblower of Boeing Airline Company, alleged serious human safety system defaults. These allegations included that faulty parts were installed in the carriage and also produced evidence that proved the assembly of substandard parts. Barnett’s claims extended to the installation of 25% of the failed oxygen systems. The manufacturing done by Boeing often encountered “rush” assembly time. The shortcomings used to cover assembly-determined failure is proportionally witnessed to cabin decompressions subject to ambient low air pressure. Barnett further alleges frequent usage of scrap parts in the core of control and transport of other new components.

Although left unacknowledged in the early stages, most of Barnett’s concerns were substantiated by a 2017 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) review. Although identified as a consequence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from a hostile work environment, Barnett’s death is yet to be debated by his close contacts, who argue that he can never claim his own life. The US identifies whistleblower protection in the aviation sector as a strong and defined process, governed by laws like the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21)⁸. This law unambiguously safeguards airline employees from punitive measures imposed for disclosing safety hazards or violations of FAA Regulations. In the USA, retaliation claims are investigated by the Department of Labour, Occupational Safety and Health Administration⁹ (OSHA), as mandated by law, wherein the remedies may include reinstatement or compensation for damages.

In contrast, India lacks a whistleblower protection law moulded specifically for the aviation sector. While the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014¹⁰ provides for general safeguards, it does not extend targeted protections to employees in private airlines or in aviation safety oversight. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) permits anonymous safety reporting through its Civil Aviation Requirements; however, this permission lacks statutory backing and carries no enforcement mechanism. As a result, aviation whistleblowers in India remain vulnerable to employer retaliation, and often face adverse consequences for demonstrating due diligence or attempting to report safety concerns. This reflects a sector-specific need for a legal framework to protect aviation whistleblower disclosures, controller oversight into aviation safety, and air travel.

The official probe is concentrated on investigating the thrust from the Boeing 787 engines, the flaps of the wings, the landing gear, and the protocols of the airline’s maintenance in light of these elements. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau¹¹ (AAIB) of India is investigating the recovered black box to detect the root cause of the crash. Although the experts have been citing several justifications, such as thrust or flap failure. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)¹² in March 2025 said that Air India’s $400 million overhaul of its legacy aircraft interiors has been hampered by supply chain challenges and has set back its expected months-long goal of being a world-class airline.¹³ This accentuates the fact that Air India had cultivated an image for intermittent delays and numerous technical failures. Furthermore, flight crews were deprived of sufficient rest hours, breaks before and after ultra-long-haul flights, or reasonable rest during layovers, in defiance of the revised regulations.

Conclusion

The tragic accident in Ahmedabad on 13-6-2025, exposes India’s aviation operation safety net, the absence of robust whistleblower statutes, and limited State intervention. Laws such as AIR21 have long been integrated into practices adopted by the numerous developed nations to protect key stakeholders. India has instituted robust consumer protection regulations; however, it must be further strengthened by incorporating explicit provisions for the protection of whistleblowers. Furthermore, there is a pressing need to establish an independent aviation regulatory authority with a statutory mandate to conduct real-time safety monitoring and enforce rigorous compliance mechanisms. However, this body must function autonomously, insulated from political or executive influence, to guarantee objectivity and institutional integrity in aviation oversight.