REVEALED: Air India Whistleblower Pilot Who Said Flights Were ‘Illegal’ Breaks Silence Amid Court Showdown

In the ongoing issue surrounding Air India’s aircraft safety concerns, a significant new development has emerged. As I’ve highlighted in my earlier blogs (first, second, third, and fourth), a whistleblower Air India captain — whose identity was withheld for legal reasons until now — has consistently raised alarms over potential regulatory violations involving the Boeing 777-200LR fleet. It can be revealed that the highly experienced airline veteran is Captain Deven Kanani from Mumbai.
 
His allegations are as specific as they are serious: that certain long-haul aircraft may not be carrying enough supplemental oxygen to sustain passengers in the event of a sudden cabin depressurization — potentially turning a midair emergency into a catastrophe. He further claims that the airline has knowingly continued to operate these aircraft in breach of legal safety norms, and that attempts to raise internal concerns led to retaliation and dismissal.

Captain Deven Kanani seen on the left during a layover in London: Photo Copyright Navjot Singh

​Now, in a dramatic legal escalation, the captain has filed a formal contempt petition against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) — India’s apex aviation regulator — for allegedly violating a Bombay High Court directive that called for a fair, transparent, and neutral inquiry into these very safety issues.
 
Real-World Alarms: A Week of Dangerous Déjà Vu
Recent developments have added dramatic weight to Captain Kanani’s warnings. In just one week, Air India experienced a string of serious in-flight incidents:

• The shocking, sad and dramatic AI171 crash involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which raised renewed alarms about the airline’s operational safety.
• An Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner flight forced to turn around mid-flight and head back to Hong Kong due to a technical issue.
• And most notably, the emergency landing in Kolkata of one of the leased Boeing 777-200LR aircraft flying from San Francisco to Mumbai – the same aircraft that the Captain Kanani has concerns about – albeit related to the oxygen issues.

These incidents, taken together, have reignited public and regulatory scrutiny — lending new urgency to a case many assumed was quietly buried.

Seen here is an Air India Boeing 777-200LR [Registration VT-AEG, MSN: 30440, one of the aircraft leased from Delta Air Lines - Ex reg N706DN]] on final approach. Photo Copyright Trevor Carl.

A Captain’s Stand: Safety vs. Silence

The controversy dates back to January 2023, when Captain Kanani submitted a formal safety report to senior management at Air India. On January 30, 2023, while preparing to command a Boeing 777-200LR flight from San Francisco to Bangalore, he was provided with three flight plans by the Integrated Flight Dispatch (IFD) team in New Delhi. All three, he contends, were illegal — failing to comply with safety regulations that require sufficient emergency oxygen for all passengers in case of rapid decompression.
 
Rejecting these plans, he demanded a legally compliant route, citing unacceptable risk to passenger lives. This challenge forced the dispatch team to generate new routing on short notice — a rare move, since most flights rely on standard preloaded routes in the aircraft’s Flight Management Computer (FMC). His insistence on flight safety over dispatch convenience triggered internal friction.
 
Soon after, his flying duties were curtailed. Then came termination.

Air India Boeing 777-232LR, registered VT-AEE [aircraft serial number 29739 LN:772]. This is first registered with Delta Air Lines on the 27th of March 2009 as N704DK. Was put in storage in March 2020 and then leased to Air India on the 1st of May 2023 via lsd Jetran Llc. Seen here landing at New York JFK. Photo Copyright Marc Najberg

Court Orders, Closed Door

Unwilling to let the matter drop, the captain approached the Bombay High Court, which, in December 2024, acknowledged the public interest at stake. The Court ordered the DGCA to conduct a "full, fair, and transparent" investigation, giving both Captain Kanani and Air India an opportunity to be heard. It made clear that this was not a private employment matter — but a question of passenger and flight safety.
 
However, as the recently released documents show, the DGCA’s handling of the case since then has raised more red flags than it resolved.

“A Sham Inquiry”: What the Documents Reveal

In a series of detailed communications now available here, Captain Kanani lays out his objections point-by-point, citing withheld evidence, procedural lapses, and missed opportunities for fairness.
 
From internal DGCA emails, meeting notices, and formal correspondence reviewed over the past months, the captain has now laid out a damning timeline in his contempt petition.
 
His core allegation is that the DGCA has deliberately undermined the court’s directive by:

• Withholding key documents, including flight plans, safety manuals, internal correspondence, and the original show-cause notices sent to Air India.
• Failing to constitute a proper inquiry panel — despite the requirement for a neutral process.
• Conducting closed-door video conference hearings with minimal notice, no access to recordings, and in some cases without informing Air India, denying the captain a chance to confront the airline’s explanations. One such meeting notice dated 18 March 2025 shows the lack of procedural accommodation, with requests to record the VC session or defer the date ignored.
• Refusing to allow the captain to record the proceedings, despite multiple requests.
• Cancelling or rescheduling meetings with no explanation, creating what he calls a "non-serious, evasive pattern of conduct."

 
For instance, a March 27, 2025 meeting was declared the "final opportunity" for him to present his case — even though it was scheduled to clash with a hearing in the same matter at the Bombay High Court that very afternoon. Despite asking for a 24–48-hour deferral, no accommodation was made.
 
Meanwhile, DGCA officials reportedly claimed that certain documents requested were "not relevant," without providing legally tenable reasons.
 
Most concerning, the captain asserts that Air India — the very party under investigation — was never called to present its side in joint hearings, violating basic principles of natural justice. In a regulatory setting, this omission isn’t just irregular — it could render the entire process invalid.

Seen here is one of the five affected aircraft. An Air India Boeing 777-232LR [registered VT-AEH. MSN 39091. Ex-registration N707DN] seen on approach to San Francisco: Photo Copyright Reuters

One Fine, No Accountability?
To date, the DGCA has imposed a ₹1.1 crore [Approx. $132,530 USD] fine on Air India for one flight operation. But the captain argues this action was limited in scope and appears more symbolic than substantive — especially when the broader fleet remains under scrutiny.
 
Following that fine, the regulator moved to close the case, despite multiple unresolved issues and the court’s instructions to examine all relevant material.
 
Captain Kanani’s petition now accuses the DGCA of effectively “throwing the case” — rushing the process, ignoring procedural fairness, and shielding Air India from meaningful examination.
 
A Fight Bigger Than One Aircraft
This isn’t just about one flight or one pilot. It’s about the credibility of aviation oversight in India — a system that millions of passengers depend on daily.
 
If a High Court's directive can be diluted behind closed doors, what hope do others have when raised safety concerns in critical industries?
 
It also raises urgent questions:

• Who watches the regulators?
• What protections exist for those who speak out?
• And are economic and reputational interests being placed above public safety?

 
In filing the contempt petition, the captain is now asking the judiciary to intervene — not to settle a private grievance, but to uphold the rule of law in aviation oversight.
 
What Comes Next?
If the contempt petition is admitted and heard, the DGCA may be required to justify its actions — or inactions — under direct judicial scrutiny. It could lead to:

• Re-opening of the investigation.
• Court-monitored inquiry procedures.
• And possibly, disciplinary or institutional reforms.

 
For Air India, this could mean facing renewed regulatory pressure — especially at a time when the airline is under the global microscope following multiple mid-air emergencies.
 
Final Descent
As this case climbs toward new legal altitudes, the implications for aviation safety in India are profound. Captain Kanani’s case isn’t just a cautionary tale — it’s a test of whether those tasked with safeguarding lives in the sky are themselves willing to be held accountable on the ground.
 
Because aviation safety doesn’t begin at take-off. It begins with trust — in pilots, in regulators, and in the system designed to protect us all.