By: Abeer Sharma
INTRODUCTION
Recently, a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 aircraft crashed near Hanumangarh in Rajasthan, resulting in a tragic accident where three women lost their lives. The aircraft caught fire and disintegrated in mid-air shortly after take-off from the Suratgarh airbase. The pilot successfully ejected, but the wreckage of the aircraft fell on the house, killing three women. This accident once again highlighted the growing series of incidents involving MiG-21 aircraft, where the lives of pilots and innocent people have been lost. The loss of lives is further compounded by the complications under aircraft accident investigations because, in India, an Aircraft Accidental Investigation Bureau (hereinafter referred to as ‘AAIB’) is set up based on laws such as the Aircraft Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Aircraft Act’) and Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2017 Rules’). Under these laws, the bureau is empowered to conduct any investigation into accidents involving civilian aircraft and harm to civilians.
On the other hand, in the case of an accident involving a military aircraft, a Court of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to as ‘COI’) is formed under the Air Force Rules, 1969. However, the main issue arises when a military aircraft encounters an accident that also causes harm to the general public. In this situation, the COI is empowered to conduct investigations due to the involvement of the military aircraft; simultaneously, because of the harm to civilians, the AAIB also has the jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry. Hence, this results in jurisdictional conflict between the two bodies: one focuses on the reasons behind aircraft failure, while the other highlights and calculates the resultant effects of the accident.
Considering the same, this blog analyses the reasons and limitations in the laws related to these bodies that cause the jurisdictional conflict between them. Furthermore, by citing international precedents, the blog proposes solutions that can be adapted to create a harmonious construction between the jurisdictional friction among both bodies and develop an efficient investigation framework for military-civilian incidents.
THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE BETWEEN THE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTAL INVESTIGATION BOARD (AAIB) AND THE COURT OF INQUIRY (COI).
Section 7 of the Aircraft Act, empowers the Government of India to make rules for investigating aircraft accidents arising out of or in the course of navigation in or over India. Considering this, the Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2012 were formulated (later amended in 2017). Under these laws, an investigation agency known as the Aircraft Accidental Investigation Board (AAIB) was established. The AAIB, as per Rule 3 of 2017 Rules, is conferred with the power to conduct investigations involving any aircraft registered in India or outside India but operating in India or any aircraft operated by a non-citizen with a principal place of business or permanent residence in India.
However, this jurisdiction is limited in nature, as Section 19 of the Aircraft Act provides a saving application, wherein any part of this act or any rule or law made under this act does not apply to the aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed by the naval, military or air forces of the Union. Since the Aircraft Act serves as the parent legislation for the 2017 Rules, the jurisdiction of the AAIB provided under these rules also excludes investigations involving military aircraft. Whereas a COI is formed to investigate military aircraft incidents as provided under Air Force Order 08/2014 (Order)[1], which outlines its power and modus operandi and the same was upheld by the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in Wg Cdr Shyam Naithani v. Union of India & Ors and Gp Capt Suman Roy Chowdhury v. Union of India & Ors.
The issue arises when a military aircraft accident affects civilians. As discussed earlier, the combination of military aircraft accidents and local public harm creates a jurisdictional conflict between the COI and AAIB. This conflict escalates when investigations conducted by the COI are done in a secluded manner, as highlighted in Paragraph 49[2] of the Order. This paragraph emphasises that the COI must determine the cause of the accidents while maintaining secrecy to protect sensitive information. Consequently, this leads to a grey area where the civilians affected by these accidents are not provided with the details concerning them.
A similar example was observed in 2019, when an IAF Mi-17 V5 helicopter crashed in Srinagar during a routine training sortie. In this instance, although initial reports indicated no civilian casualties, subsequent investigations revealed structural damage to residential areas near the crash site with the death of a civilian and the IAF convened a COI. The COI’s findings were classified as confidential under Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, citing national security concerns and prevented the civil compensation and impact assessments.
Further, the AAIB was restrained by the government from collecting any evidence, such as flight recorders and maintenance logs of the helicopter, by citing Rule 4(3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which exempts military aircraft from civil investigation protocols. This resulted in a gap in the civilian perspective during the investigation, neglecting various crucial aspects. Further, the case reinforced the systematic barrier where military COIs clash and supersede civilian investigations, even in accidents concerning public consequences.
LIMITATIONS UNDER THE CURRENT LAW CAUSING THE JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICT.
The jurisdictional conflict in the present cases arises due to the exclusivity of law, wherein the AAIB and COI are confined within their limited spheres of investigation. Whenever a situation arises where both could potentially work on a case, the state prohibits this by debarring one and allowing the other. Section 19 of the Aircraft Act serves as a boundary line in this context, limiting the enforcement of civil aviation laws within the military aviation sphere, even when there is an intersection between both.
Moreover, in military aviation laws such as the Air Force Act, 1950 and Air Force Rules 1969, there is no specific provision that prohibits the COI investigation in civilian aircraft accidents. However, as a general practice, such investigations are not conducted unless exceptional circumstances arise.
Hence, in a gist, it can be said that the core issue behind the current jurisdictional conflict lies in the exclusivity created by provisions such as Section 19 of the Aircraft Act, which demarcates the boundary between civil and military aviation. This demarcation aims to prevent the intermingling of investigations but overlooks scenarios wherein intersections may occur, such as military accidents affecting civilians.
Regarding potential solutions, amending Section 19 of the Aircraft Act could create exceptions for investigations, allowing the AAIB to work coordinatively with the COI under specific circumstances that involve both the military and civil aviation aspects. Furthermore, to promote harmonious working between both entities, a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) could be developed to provide a comprehensive structure for addressing various civil-military aircraft accidents.
THE INTERNATIONAL STANCE AND OTHER SOLUTIONS TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE
Parallel to India, other nations have faced similar jurisdictional tussles, and to address these issues, numerous measures and solutions have been proposed. Considering the same, this head proposes solutions based on the course of action and policies adopted by other countries.
Inter-Agency Agreements (MOUs) for Joint Investigations
The United States has established a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate accidents involving civilian aircrafts. On the same lines, the Department of Defence, which includes the United States Air Force (USAF), is entrusted with the investigation of military aircraft accidents. In 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the two agencies, creating a complementary framework for addressing military-civilian aircraft accident intersections and commercial space launches.
In Canada, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which deals with civilian aircraft, has formed a formal agreement with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) under its broader Canadian Forces Flight Safety Programme since 2007. This agreement establishes a protocol for coordination between the two entities when an aircraft accident involves both military and civilian aspects.
A similar approach can be adopted in India, wherein a binding MOU could be formed between AAIB and COI, under the Air Force Order 08/2014 and 2017 Rules. This would result in the creation of specific accident-based joint investigation panels consisting of members from both bodies, with clearly defined roles. For instance, AAIB members could assess airspace management and compensation, while COI members handle technical military aspects. Furthermore, an information-sharing protocol can be adopted under this joint investigation panel to promote the necessary transparency and ensure a complementary flow of information between all members.
Establishment of Hybrid Investigation Frameworks
In the European Union (EU), the EUR Regional Aviation Safety Plan (RASP) establishes a structured framework for collaboration between military and civilian authorities. The EUR RASP § 5.3.1.5 promotes Joint Civil-Military Investigation Teams (JCMITs) for accidents involving military aircraft in civilian areas. Further, EUR RASP § 3.1.5 requires military authorities to share anonymised accident data with civilian counterparts, i.e. European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). A notable example of this partnership was seen during an incident involving the German Eurofighter Typhoon and UAV, wherein, after the incident, a Joint Civil-Military Investigation Team (JCMIT) was established comprising representatives of the German Air Force and EASA.
Furthermore, India could adopt a similar hybrid framework through an Air Force Order on Civilian Safety and Investigation Collaboration (AFO-CSIC), where the focus of this order could be to minimise the defence aviation accidents while incorporating AAIB into COI proceedings for every investigation dealing with civilian damages. Additionally, under this new order, the members of the AAIB could serve as technical advisors to COI dealing with critical issues of compensation and future preventive measures.
Formation of a Separate Investigation Mechanism
The Brazilian Air Force operates the Aeronautical Accidents Investigation and Prevention Centre (CENIPA), a military organisation that specifically investigates aircraft accidents involving both civilian and military aspects. The CENIPA functions independently despite the existence of separate investigation bodies for civilian and military aircraft accidents. Its primary objective is to provide exclusive attention to military-civilian aircraft accidents while maintaining an independent permanent establishment, with its members and secretariat.
India could establish a similar investigative mechanism through an independent agency known as the Indian Aviation Safety & Accident Investigation Bureau (IASAIB). This agency can be exclusively empowered to investigate the accidents involving both civilian and military aircraft in India. Further, IASAIB could be established through the collaboration between the Ministries of Civil Aviation and Defence, ensuring autonomy by establishing independent investigation boards and a permanent secretariat. Moreover, its structure could be made more holistic by including professionals from different technical fields, such as medical professionals, fire safety experts, investigative agents, etc, thereby providing a new perspective in comparison to normal aircraft accident investigations.
CONCLUSION
Hence, it can be concluded that the jurisdictional conflict between the AAIB and COI emerges due to the rigid legal exclusivities, primarily Section 19 of the Aircraft Act. This further causes limited transparency and the absence of a civilian viewpoint during investigations. The solution to this conflict lies in measures such as amending Section 19 to allow joint investigations, drafting an MOU for organised coordination, adopting hybrid frameworks like the UK’s DASR model, and further configuring an independent agency, IASAIB, similar to Brazil’s CENIPA, which could provide permanent autonomous status for the military-civilian aircraft accident investigation. Thus, the present pressing need is the adoption of a complementary approach that integrates both military and civilian perspectives, making it essential for accountability, transparency and future accident prevention.
[1] Air Force Order No 8 2014.
[2] Air Force Order No 8 2014, Para 49.
(Abeer Sharma is a law graduate from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. The author may be contacted via mail at abeersharma23206@rgnul.ac.in)
Cite as: Abeer Sharma, Jurisdictional Conflicts in Military Aircraft Investigations: The Case of MIG-21 Crashes and the Implications of Aircraft Act and Air Force Rules, 16th May 2025 <https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2025/05/16/jurisdictional-conflicts-in-military-aircraft-investigations-the-case-of-mig-21-crashes-and-the-implications-of-aircraft-act-and-air-force-rules/> date of access.