The Government of India and its specialist accident investigation agency have issued some of their strongest language yet in response to what they describe as speculative and selective international media coverage of the Air India Flight AI 171 crash. Within days of an Italian newspaper suggesting investigators were poised to blame an Air India pilot for intentionally cutting fuel to the engines, New Delhi has moved to firmly reassert the status of the probe, the legal framework guiding it, and the limits of what is currently known about the June 2025 disaster near Ahmedabad.

Fresh Clarification After Italian Media Claims

The latest clarification was triggered by reports in the Italian press that cited unnamed foreign aviation sources and claimed Indian investigators had effectively concluded that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner went down because one of its pilots intentionally shut off fuel to both engines. That narrative, amplified by secondary commentary in parts of the international media, suggested the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau was preparing to formally attribute the crash to deliberate pilot action.

Indian authorities have pushed back hard. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau stated that any assertion that the AI 171 probe has been finalised is incorrect and speculative. Officials underscored that the investigation is still in progress, and that no final conclusions have been reached on either the technical chain of events or the underlying causes and responsibilities. This directly contradicts the impression that a definitive finding about pilot intent already exists within the official inquiry.

New Delhi’s response goes beyond a simple denial. By publicly naming unverified foreign reports and framing them as premature, the Indian side is seeking to draw a clear line between the formal, evidence based processes underway under Indian and international aviation law, and the evolving media narrative abroad. It is a message aimed as much at domestic audiences still grieving the loss of 260 lives as at foreign readers who may be consuming partial accounts of a complex technical investigation.

What the AI 171 Investigation Has Actually Established

At the heart of the dispute is the gap between what is already a matter of public record and what remains under active examination. A month after the 12 June 2025 crash, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report detailing the factual sequence of events identified at that early stage. That document, which runs to around 15 pages, described how both fuel control switches on the Boeing 787 transitioned from the “run” to “cutoff” position within about one second of each other shortly after takeoff. The dual loss of thrust that followed left the aircraft unable to climb, and it plunged into a residential area near the airport, killing almost everyone on board and 19 people on the ground.

The cockpit voice recording, according to that preliminary report, captured one pilot asking the other why the fuel had been cut, and receiving a denial in reply. However, investigators were careful in their language, saying the switches had transitioned rather than stating they were physically moved by either pilot. Crucially, the report did not draw conclusions about intent, mechanical malfunction, potential software issues or any other root cause behind the near simultaneous fuel cutoffs.

Indian officials now stress that this distinction remains central. The preliminary report was, by design, limited to factual information available at that time. It is not, they emphasise, a verdict. The final investigation report, which will carry formal conclusions and safety recommendations, will only be released after investigators have fully analysed flight data, cockpit audio, maintenance records, training records, air traffic control communications, and any relevant human factors evidence. Until that process is complete, any claim that India has already decided the crash was the result of a deliberate act goes beyond the public record and the state of the inquiry.

Government and AAIB Push Back Against International Spin

The latest statement from the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau fits a pattern that has been building since mid 2025. As global interest in the crash intensified, the bureau took the unusual step in July that year of publicly warning that sections of the international media were engaging in selective and unverified reporting. Officials described such coverage as irresponsible and cautioned that attempts to draw conclusions from partial data could damage the integrity of the investigation.

Those concerns were echoed by India’s political leadership. The Civil Aviation Ministry and the Union aviation minister repeatedly urged foreign outlets to avoid speculation and respect the fact that accident probes take time. The minister also highlighted that, for the first time, India’s own investigators had successfully decoded the flight data and cockpit voice recorders domestically instead of sending them abroad. For New Delhi, this was not just a technical milestone but a signal of confidence in national capability and independence at a moment when outside commentary was casting doubt on the conduct of the inquiry.

The tone has hardened further in recent days. By labeling the Italian account incorrect and speculative, and by directly warning that unverified reporting can cause unnecessary public anxiety, the Government of India is effectively accusing some foreign outlets of crossing a line from tough scrutiny into narrative shaping. Senior officials have hinted that some of these narratives may be influenced by vested interests, whether commercial, legal or political, that have a stake in steering blame toward individual pilots rather than wider systemic or manufacturing factors.

Underlying the government’s pushback is a determination to re-anchor the public conversation in the established rules governing air accident investigations. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau has repeatedly cited two pillars for its work on AI 171. The first is India’s own Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules 2025, notified after the crash but applicable to ongoing inquiries. The second is the country’s obligations under Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention, which sets out global standards and recommended practices for aircraft accident and incident investigations.

These frameworks are clear on several points. Accident investigations are meant to be technical fact finding exercises focused on improving safety, not judicial proceedings aimed at assigning criminal or civil liability. They require methodical collection and analysis of evidence, consultation with accredited representatives from the state of manufacture and other stakeholders, and opportunities for those named in draft findings to comment before a final report is issued. Annex 13 also calls for a distinction between preliminary information issued to support transparency and operational learning, and the final, comprehensive report that sets out causes and safety recommendations.

Indian authorities argue that their handling of AI 171 conforms to these norms. The preliminary factual report was released in line with international practice, giving the aviation community early insight into what happened in the cockpit and the fuel system without pre-judging the why. The ongoing work aims to produce a final report that stands up to international scrutiny not only on substance but on process. From New Delhi’s perspective, media narratives that imply a conclusion has already been reached short circuit that process and risk undermining trust in the integrity of the final outcome, whatever it may be.

Tensions Between Transparency, Public Grief, and Media Demands

Few contexts test the balance between openness and restraint as severely as a major air disaster. The AI 171 crash was India’s deadliest airline accident in decades, with haunting images of a modern widebody jet collapsing into a student hostel just seconds after liftoff. Families of victims in India and overseas, aviation workers, passengers and the broader public all have intense emotional and practical stakes in understanding what went wrong and who, if anyone, is responsible.

For many families, the release of the preliminary report last July brought both some clarity and fresh anguish. The bare fact that the fuel supply to both engines had been cut so soon after takeoff, whatever the mechanism, fed understandable speculation. Relatives of crew members felt defensive about suggestions that the report pointed an implied finger at one of the pilots. At the same time, some safety advocates argued that the absence of regular, detailed public briefings left a vacuum that international media and anonymous sources were all too ready to fill.

That dynamic is not unique to India. Around the world, long running accident probes often collide with the twenty four hour news cycle and the legal battles that quickly follow major crashes. What sets AI 171 apart, from the Indian government’s viewpoint, is the extent to which foreign commentary has leapt from partial factual findings to confident claims about intent and individual guilt before technical issues, organisational culture, design factors and regulatory oversight have been fully examined. Hence the strong language about speculative and selective reporting and the insistence that the public must wait for the complete picture.

Parallel Inquiries and Calls for a Judicial Probe

The AI 171 investigation is not confined to a single track. Soon after the crash, the Union government created a high level multidisciplinary committee headed by the Union home secretary. That panel was tasked with examining existing standard operating procedures and guidelines for preventing and responding to such incidents, and with recommending improvements in training, oversight and emergency response. It operates in parallel with, but does not replace, the technical inquiry led by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.

At the same time, professional pilot bodies in India have raised their own concerns about the conduct and perception of the probe. The Federation of Indian Pilots, one of the country’s best known pilots’ associations, has publicly called for a court of inquiry or judicial probe, arguing that some interactions between investigators and the family of the late captain have risked creating an impression of bias. In its communications with the government, the federation has warned that any perception that investigators are predisposed to blame crew could damage pilot morale and undermine faith in the fairness of the process.

These internal critiques complicate New Delhi’s effort to present a united front against external media narratives. While the government defends the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s professionalism and insists the investigation is evidence driven, it must also contend with domestic stakeholders who fear that both leaks and selective interpretations of the preliminary report have put pilots in the dock long before a final report. The decision to restate, in clear terms, that no final conclusions have been reached can be seen as an attempt to address both foreign misreporting and homegrown anxieties about due process.

Implications for Aviation Safety and India’s Global Image

The AI 171 investigation is not only about the past; it will shape the future of aviation safety and India’s standing in global air transport. As one of the world’s fastest growing aviation markets and the owner of a rapidly expanding widebody fleet, India is under pressure to demonstrate that its regulatory and investigative institutions meet the highest international standards. Any perception that accident probes are influenced by politics, commercial pressures or the need to protect national carriers or foreign manufacturers would have far reaching consequences for public confidence and international cooperation.

By foregrounding its adherence to Annex 13 and its domestic accident investigation rules, the Government of India is clearly aware of these stakes. The insistence on methodical, evidence based work, on transparency once the process is complete, and on resisting premature blame is framed as essential to producing credible safety lessons that will be respected by foreign regulators, manufacturers and airlines. Those lessons could range from cockpit procedures and human factors training to aircraft systems design, oversight of maintenance practices and emergency planning around densely populated airports.

At the same time, New Delhi’s combative stance toward certain international reports carries its own risks. If the final report ultimately does identify serious human error, including on the part of one or more pilots, critics abroad may argue that India sought to soften or delay that conclusion under pressure from unions or public opinion. Conversely, if the findings emphasise systemic or technical causes, some may claim that early foreign reporting tried to scapegoat a dead crew member to protect other interests. The only durable answer to both sets of concerns will be a final report whose reasoning, data and recommendations are robust enough to stand up to intense global scrutiny.

What Travelers Should Know as the Probe Continues

For travellers in and out of India, the renewed controversy around AI 171 can be unsettling. Modern air travel depends on a high degree of trust that regulators, investigators and airlines are constantly learning from past incidents and sharing those lessons across borders. High profile disputes between national authorities and foreign media can give the impression of opacity or defensiveness at exactly the moment when the flying public wants clarity and candour.

Yet it is important to distinguish perception from practice. As of mid February 2026, there is no indication that India has departed from the core international playbook for accident investigations. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau continues its work, other agencies contribute specialised expertise, and a separate high level committee looks to translate lessons into better procedures and crisis responses. The crash has also spurred debate within India’s aviation community on mental health support for pilots, cockpit culture, and how best to communicate with families and the media after a catastrophe.

Until the final report is published, the story of AI 171 will remain contested terrain. International outlets will continue to seek scoops, domestic stakeholders will fight to protect their reputations and interests, and grieving families will demand answers. By publicly rebuking what it sees as speculative spin and reiterating that no final conclusions have been reached, the Government of India is betting that a slower, more disciplined approach will ultimately produce findings that not only explain a tragedy, but help prevent the next one. For travellers, the key message for now is that the investigation remains open, its outcome is not preordained, and the final chapter in this story has yet to be written.