Priyanka Chaturvedi seeks probe into 'leak' of Air India plane crash report to international media
In a letter to Naidu, she said a formal inquiry should be conducted into the "leak".
Seeking transparency regarding the authorship of the report, Chaturvedi said the names of all members of the investigation panel should be made public, and the interim report should bear the signatures of each panel member.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau on Saturday released its preliminary report on the crash of Air India's Boeing 787-8 plane that killed 260 people, including 241 people onboard. The aircraft, which was operating the flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, crashed into a building soon after takeoff.
Chaturvedi wrote, "I write to you to express serious concerns regarding the manner in which the recent interim investigation report by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau was handled and disseminated, particularly in light of media reports surfacing in international publications before the report was officially made public in India."
She said she is writing given the serious implications for public safety, pilot morale, and India's global aviation standing.
"Because one can't be a mute spectator to what is happening with regards to the narrative around the AI171 crash and its interim report," she said, sharing her letter on X.
"It is deeply troubling that sensitive details of the AAIB report were available to foreign news agencies and published in outlets such as The Wall Street Journal before any official release in India. This raises urgent questions about how the contents of the report were accessed by foreign entities prior to their dissemination to the Indian public and concerned stakeholders.
"Such a breach not only undermines the credibility of our aviation safety institutions but also reflects a serious lapse in information security and protocol," the Rajya Sabha MP said.
She also claimed that the nonstop insinuations are being made against the deceased pilots through implication and selective leaks of the interim report through the international media are "absolutely reprehensible".
"Such motivated speculation via broadcast, print and digital platforms shows a more sinister attempt to malign our pilots who aren't alive to put their case even pilot associations have raised their objections," Chaturvedi said.
She also demanded that the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting issue clear media guidelines on how interim reports from regulatory and investigative bodies such as AAIB should be reported upon, considering their potential impact on aviation personnel, airline operations, and public perception globally.
"Inclusion of experienced aviators in every stage of such investigations, either as investigators or as qualified observers, to ensure technical accuracy and stakeholder confidence," she demanded.
Chaturvedi also alleged that the report was quietly released during late hours, with no public briefing, no signed interim findings, and no clarity on the process that led to its release.
"The lack of transparency in such a critical matter gives rise to legitimate concerns about whose interests are being served and whether due process has been followed," she noted.
The Shiv Sena leader said it is also important to highlight that pilot associations have publicly voiced their apprehensions about the composition of the investigation team. They have pointed out that no experienced aviator appears to have been involved in the investigation process, and have even offered to contribute voluntarily as observers to ensure credibility, technical insight, and fair representation, she said.
Seconds before Air India flight 171 crashed while ascending from Ahmedabad, the fuel control switches of both its engines were cut off, according to the preliminary investigation report, suggesting a catastrophic pilot error in the cockpit of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
The Airlines Pilots Association of India disagreed with the report, saying the investigation is "shrouded in secrecy," appears to be biased against the pilot and has come to a conclusion hastily.
A 15-page preliminary investigation report into the disaster revealed that fuel-control switches of the two engines moved from the "run" to the "cutoff" position, within the space of one second, leading to immediate loss of altitude.
In the cockpit voice recording, one pilot is heard asking the other why he cut off the fuel. The other denied having done so.
The report by the AIIB, released early on Saturday, neither concluded any reason for the switches moving nor apportioned explicit blame for the crash.
It also did not identify the pilots in the voice recording. But it also said no fault was found in the aircraft, leaving only the possibility of pilot error as the cause.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Voter revision can't stop Assam's demographic invasion: Himanta Biswa Sarma
Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Tuesday said voter list revision cannot stop the demographic invasion which several areas of the state are facing. Sarma said Assam requires an indigenous solution for the problem as the cut-off date for determination of citizenship is 1951 in the rest of the country while in Assam it is 1971. The cut-off date for detecting foreigners in the state was set as March 24, 1971 in accordance with the Assam Accord , which was signed after a six-year anti-foreigners' movement led by AASU. Sarma told reporters in Guwahati that over the last four years, 160 sq km of land has been cleared through eviction and nearly 50,000 people have been asked to leave. He said the names of several of them are in the list of voters of two districts and the deputy commissions are striking off the dual names after the eviction drive. "Assam's situation is different," said Sarma. "Whoever was ever evicted, the deputy commissioner must have deleted the names from the voter list. So, voter revision cannot stop demographic invasion, as in Assam the citizenship starts from 1971, not 1951, like in the rest of the country. So, technically, you may not say that everybody is not an Indian."
Economic Times
37 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Rogue bots? AI firms must pay up
When Elon Musk's xAI was forced to apologise this week after its Grok chatbot spewed antisemitic content and white nationalist talking points, the response felt depressingly familiar: suspend the service, issue an apology and promise to do better. Rinse and isn't the first time we've seen this playbook. Microsoft's Tay chatbot disaster in 2016 followed a similar pattern. The fact that we're here again, nearly a decade later, suggests the AI industry has learnt remarkably little from its mistakes. But the world is no longer willing to accept 'sorry' as sufficient. This is because AI has become a force multiplier for content generation and dissemination, and the time-to-impact has shrunk. Thus, liability and punitive actions are being discussed. The Grok incident revealed a troubling aspect of how AI companies approach accountability. According to xAI, the problematic behaviour emerged after they tweaked their system to allow more 'politically incorrect' responses - a decision that seems reckless. When the inevitable happened, they blamed deprecated code that should have been removed. If you're building systems capable of reaching millions of users, shouldn't you know what code is running in production?The real problem isn't technical - it's philosophical. Too many AI companies treat bias and harmful content as unfortunate side effects to be addressed after deployment, rather than fundamental risks to be prevented beforehand. This reactive approach worked when the stakes were lower, but AI systems now operate at unprecedented scale and influence. When a chatbot generates hate speech, it's not embarrassing - it's dangerous, legitimising and amplifying extremist ideologies to vast legal landscape is shifting rapidly, and AI companies ignoring these changes do so at their peril. The EU's AI Act, which came into force in February, represents a shift from reactive regulation to proactive governance. Companies can no longer apologise their way out of AI failures - they must demonstrate they've implemented robust safeguards before AB 316, introduced last January, takes an even more direct approach by prohibiting the 'the AI did it' defence in civil cases. This legislation recognises what should be obvious: companies that develop and deploy AI systems bear responsibility for their outputs, regardless of whether those outputs were 'intended'.India's approach may prove more punitive than the EU's regulatory framework and more immediate than the US litigation-based system, focusing on swift enforcement of existing criminal laws rather than waiting for new AI-specific legislation. India doesn't yet have AI-specific legislation, but if Grok's antisemitic incident had occurred with Indian users, then steps like immediate blocking of the AI service, a criminal case against xAI under IPC 153A, and a demand for content removal from the X platform would have been Grok incident may mark a turning point. Regulators worldwide are demanding proactive measures rather than reactive damage control, and courts are increasingly willing to hold companies directly liable for their systems' shift is long overdue. AI systems aren't just software - they're powerful tools that shape public discourse, influence decision-making and can cause real-world harm. The companies that build these systems must be held to higher standards than traditional software developers, with corresponding legal and ethical question facing the AI industry isn't whether to embrace this new reality - it's whether to do so voluntarily or have it imposed by regulators and courts. Companies that continue to rely on the old playbook of post-incident apologies will find themselves increasingly isolated in a world demanding AI industry's true maturity will show not in flashy demos or sky-high valuations, but in its commitment to safety over speed, rigour over shortcuts, and real accountability over empty apologies. In this game, 'sorry' won't cut it - only responsibility writer is a commentator ondigital policy issues (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Rumblings at the top of Ola Electric The hybrid vs. EV rivalry: Why Maruti and Mahindra pull in different directions. What's best? How Safexpress bootstrapped its way to build India's largest PTL Express business Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe. Newton vs. industry: Inside new norms that want your car to be more fuel-efficient Stock Radar: UltraTech Cements hit a fresh record high in July; what should investors do – book profits or buy the dip? F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to gain from index correction Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
Economic Times
38 minutes ago
- Economic Times
A law to settle disputes, if neglectful to power, can sustain the inequalities it seeks to remedy
And don't you forget that you're being recorded On Monday, the Supreme Court in 'Vibhor Garg v. Neha' ruled that a husband's secretly-recorded phone calls with his wife are admissible evidence in a divorce litigation. Justice B V Nagarathna, writing for a 2-judge bench, invoked the exception under Section 122, Indian Evidence Act, which permits disclosure of communication between spouses in marital suits. The court reasoned that such recordings advance the constitutional right to a fair trial, and can override marital privacy. With that single move, the court reiterated a boundary that has long kept domestic surveillance at least technically suspect. It is now law that a spouse may listen in first and justify later, so long as the marriage is on the rocks. The judgment demands close scrutiny, as it fails to consider the power imbalances underlying privacy breaches. Snooping as coercive control: The court treats clandestine recordings as a mere effect of marital breakdown, not a cause. However, this reasoning ignores the phenomenon of coercive control. Call-recording apps installed without consent, insistence on shared passwords and unlocked phones, and forced access to WhatsApp chats and UPI SMS alerts are scenarios Indian counsellors routinely hear from survivors of domestic abuse, primarily women. Most times, surveillance precedes, and often precipitates, marital discord. Women's rights activists and family lawyers reiterate that domestic surveillance is an intrusive and all-consuming method of gendered domination. By holding that secret clips, however obtained, are presumptively admissible, the judgment incentivises spying - especially for the spouse who enjoys economic leverage or technological literacy. Courts could have insisted on a proportionality filter: admit only material that could not be gathered by less-intrusive means, and weigh whether the act of snooping itself constituted a form of abuse. Instead, the ruling raises the stakes for many wives already monitored by their husbands or in-laws, and sharpens the pressure to 'behave' under watch. Sanctity v. privacy: To justify this outcome, the bench reaches back to the Victorian rationale of Section 122. Shielding privileged communication between spouses protects the 'sanctity of marriage'. The court now says that once marital harmony is eroded, so must the privilege; privacy plays no independent role. This reasoning justifies a 200-year-old outdated rationale, instead of subjecting it to the latest constitutional tests of privacy. Since the authoritative 9-judge bench 2017 judgment in the 'Justice K S Puttaswamy' case, informational privacy has been declared a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Every statutory limit on this must pass a proportionality test. State infringement of privacy must be: Be proportionate to the need for such interference. Have procedural guarantees against abuse of power. The spirit of Puttaswamy ideally should be followed here, even when the breach is by a private party. A blanket licence for covert recordings, which ignores the means of recording and their centrality to the litigation at hand, would fail the proportionality test's requirement of necessity and minimal court's refusal to run Section 122 through the 'Puttaswamy filter' echoes the logic that once kept marital rape outside the penal code. Marriage was said to confer perpetual consent to sexual acts between spouses. For several decades, this rationale was unquestioningly accepted as legitimate. Constitutional adjudication should do the opposite in all these cases - interrogate inherited rationales, not inherit them rights activists have long argued that privacy cannot shield domestic violence. The state should step into the home when there's abuse. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is rooted in that insight. Yet, women's rights also insist that intrusions on privacy be evaluated through the lens of power and vulnerability.'Vibhor Garg' ignores this safeguard. It allows the spouse with the tech tools to trample upon privacy, even when the surveillance itself may be a form of abuse. A rights-sensitive approach should perhaps ask: was the recording coerced? Was it a tool of clandestine control? Admitting such evidence without that inquiry risks turning the courtroom into an extension of the abusive household, where such control is legitimised through Supreme Court has shown that it can balance public interest with personal liberty. In 'Selvi v. State of Karnataka' (2010), it permitted narco-analysis only when the accused gives consent and strict procedural safeguards are observed. In 'Vibhor Garg', however, it reads the Evidence Act mechanically and only weighs privacy against marital far richer constitutional values of autonomy, dignity and equality hardly make an appearance. The exception in Section 122 should be subjected to a proportionality inquiry. Until then, 'Vibhor Garg' stands as a cautionary tale: a law framed to settle disputes, if inattentive to power, can perpetuate the very inequalities it seeks to remedy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Rumblings at the top of Ola Electric The hybrid vs. EV rivalry: Why Maruti and Mahindra pull in different directions. What's best? How Safexpress bootstrapped its way to build India's largest PTL Express business Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe. Newton vs. industry: Inside new norms that want your car to be more fuel-efficient Stock Radar: UltraTech Cements hit a fresh record high in July; what should investors do – book profits or buy the dip? F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to gain from index correction Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
