Customer Care Phone Number

In the wake of a catastrophic Air India crash resulting in over 250 fatalities, a parallel crisis emerged in the court of public and international opinion. Recent reports from prominent international media outlets began to cast a shadow over the subsequent investigation, alleging serious “friction, lack of coordination and possible procedural lapses” between Indian and US agencies involved in the high-stakes probe.

These reports, if left unchallenged, threatened to erode global confidence in the investigation’s findings before they were even published, potentially fueling speculation and conspiracy theories around one of the world’s worst aviation disasters of 2025. The questions became as much about transparency and procedure as they were about the tragic event itself.

On December 18, 2025, the Indian government, through the Minister of State for Civil Aviation, Shri Murlidhar Mohol, issued a formal and comprehensive rebuttal in the Lok Sabha. This official statement directly addressed the swirling allegations, transforming the narrative from one of a procedural scandal into a clear defense of sovereign investigative protocol.

Direct Rejection of Alleged Friction and Lapses

The government’s response to part (a) of the parliamentary question is a masterclass in procedural assertion without engaging in specific, public tit-for-tat. Rather than detailing the alleged “friction,” the statement sidesteps the drama entirely. It affirms that the investigation is being conducted by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) strictly “as per the standards of International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).”

Crucially, it outlines the ICAO-mandated framework for participation, which includes the “State of Manufacturer” (likely the US, if the aircraft was a Boeing, or Europe if an Airbus) and other relevant states. By framing the involvement of foreign agencies not as a point of conflict but as a standard, rule-based component of a global investigation, the response neutralizes allegations of dysfunctional coordination. It presents a picture of structured, lawful collaboration, implicitly rejecting the media’s portrayal of disarray.

The “Black Box” Protocol: A Detailed Chain of Custody

The most concrete and impactful part of the rebuttal lies in the answer to part (b), concerning the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)—collectively known as the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFRs) or “black boxes.” The integrity of these devices is the bedrock of any crash investigation, and their chain of custody is paramount.

The government provided a meticulous, date-stamped log:

• The rear EAFR was recovered on June 13, 2025.
• The front EAFR was recovered on June 16, 2025.
• Both were transferred to the AAIB in Delhi on June 24, 2025, “with all security protocols in vogue.”
• Most definitively, it states that both recorders “are in custody of AAIB since its retrieval from crash site under constant security and CCTV surveillance.”

This level of detail is a direct counter to any insinuation of evidence tampering, loss of control, or insecure handling. By asserting unbroken custody under constant electronic surveillance from the crash site to the AAIB lab, the government presents an unassailable procedural wall around the investigation’s core evidence.

Asserting Autonomy and Rejecting External Review

Perhaps the most pointed response is to parts (c) and (d), which asked if an independent, time-bound review of the investigation process would be launched. The answer is a firm “no,” rooted in the principle of institutional independence.

The statement reminds Parliament and the public that the AAIB was “established as an independent body in July, 2012, to ensure functional autonomy.” It further notes that its work is governed by the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2025. The implication is clear: the AAIB is, by design and by law, already the independent review body. To suggest a second, external review would be to question the foundational statutes that ensure its autonomy, a step the government is unwilling to take. This firmly closes the door on calls for what it views as a redundant and potentially undermining process.

Conclusion: A Battle for Credibility in the Shadow of Tragedy

The Lok Sabha Q&A transcends a simple status update. It represents a sovereign nation’s formal pushback against a narrative of incompetence and opacity being circulated in the global media. By focusing on ICAO protocols, an ironclad chain of custody for critical evidence, and the legal autonomy of its investigative body, the Indian government has shifted the debate from alleged procedural failures to a defense of its adherence to established global standards.

For the families of the victims and the global aviation community, the ultimate proof will be in the final, thorough, and credible investigation report. However, this official statement serves as a critical juncture, attempting to restore a foundation of trust in the process itself by publicly asserting control, procedure, and independence at a moment when all three were under international scrutiny.