What message does making rules and then backing down from them send?

The chaos created at the country’s airports due to the cancellation of hundreds of IndiGo flights has raised two main questions. First, was the DGCA overly strict in enforcing the new rules on pilots and crew? Second, is IndiGo responsible for the negligence in enforcing these rules?

The DGCA has temporarily withdrawn its new guidelines. IndiGo had 20 months to prepare its pilot and crew rosters in accordance with those guidelines. IndiGo’s pilot-per-aircraft ratio is among the lowest compared to Air India and other Indian airlines.

In fact, the reduced pilot count is part of IndiGo’s cost-cutting strategy, which has made it one of the world’s most profitable airlines. In 2024-25, it reported a net profit of ₹7,258 crore and a market cap of ₹2.08 lakh crore. Air Deccan’s GR Gopinath writes in an article that DGCA regulations dictate the maximum number of hours pilots and cabin crew can work, fly, and be on duty.

Rules may state that a pilot can fly 900 hours a year, but no more than 100 hours in 28 days. Or, with two pilots, no more than 8 hours of flight time. Whereas, with 3-4 pilots, flights of up to 13-16 hours a day are possible, with no more than 5-6 stopovers and no more night landings.

But the DGCA-IndiGo dispute shows how regulatory authorities can undermine the very purpose of improving business efficiency. Recently, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), led by Union Communications Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia, issued a directive requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install a communication companion app. This was intended to prevent cyber fraud, but activists said it could increase data theft.

As a result, as in the Indigo case, the government had to amend the rule and make pre-installation of the Sanchar Saathi app voluntary. This constant backtracking on its decisions indicates that regulatory bodies are trapped under bureaucratic control.

Instead of simplifying procedures, new regulations often complicate compliance, giving officials greater power. This contradicts the goal of ease of doing business. Many new regulations appear to have been implemented without adequately studying the potential consequences. Just a few weeks ago, the government had to withdraw Quality Control Orders (QCOs), which had practically paralyzed international trade.

The root cause of excessive regulation is that in the age of AI and automation, officials want to maintain control over their domains. Technological changes have closed the avenues through which officials could benefit from exercising their discretion. As those opportunities are eroding, bureaucracies are trying to regain some power through new regulations. Making compliance difficult keeps these windows of opportunity open.

For example, recent changes to Aadhaar cards removed the Care of option—which allowed for the father’s name to be entered. This led to long queues at Aadhaar centers for physical verification and created difficulties for people at RTOs, as all details needed to be matched. Instead of simplifying the work of the public, such regulatory changes further complicate it.

The IndiGo-DGCA dispute has damaged the airline’s credibility as well as the DGCA’s oversight capabilities. The civil aviation regulator is already facing criticism for its hastily prepared report on the Air India Boeing crash. That report virtually exonerated the American aircraft manufacturer and placed the blame on the pilot. Today, the DGCA faces a severe staff shortage and an excessive workload. Effective regulation requires addressing both problems to ensure passenger safety and maintain aviation credibility.