Are Air Crashes An Act Of God? Legal Frameworks And Emerging Challenges In Aviation Law

Air India Flight 171: Aviation Liability and the Act of God Doctrine

On June 12, 2025, India witnessed a devastating catastrophe involving Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner that tragically crashed in Ahmedabad just minutes after takeoff. The crash claimed the lives of over 260 individuals, including both passengers and ground personnel.

In the legal aftermath of such aviation disasters, a pivotal question inevitably arises: was the incident truly an ‘Act of God’? Who can be held liable for the incident, and what is the legal framework that governs such situations?

This article aims to examine the concept of airline liability in the context of such incidents, with a particular focus on whether the carrier bears strict or absolute liability under the law. It further examines the legal frameworks governing such liabilities, both under Indian legislation and international conventions such as the Montreal Convention, 1999. The objective is to conduct a critical evaluation of these frameworks and assess the evolving legal and practical challenges associated with aviation disaster laws.

What is ‘Act of God’ in Law?

In legal terms, an Act of God (Vis Major) is a natural and unforeseeable event that is so extraordinary and irresistible that no human foresight, care, or skill could have prevented it or mitigated its consequences. Natural disasters encompass a range of severe weather events, including storms, tempests, lightning, heavy rainfall, exceptionally high tides, severe frost, and tidal bores.

There are certain legal conditions to invoke Vis Major (Act of God) as a legal defence; the following conditions must be satisfied:

• The damage must have been caused purely by natural origin without any human intervention.
• The possibility of such an event must have been beyond reasonable foresight, and it could not have been prevented even after taking all adequate measures.
• A natural event must be the immediate and direct cause of the damage (causa causans). The defendant must show that all necessary steps were taken to prevent damage. Any failure to take this measure invalidates this defence arrangement.

Aviation Liability: Legal Frameworks and Regulations

India’s legal framework for aviation liability is shaped by domestic statutes such as the:

• Carriage by Air Act, 1972
• Aircraft Rules, 1937
• Aircraft Act, 1934

Although the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, does not itself contain detailed liability provisions, it gives effect to international conventions that define liability limits and conditions.

The Montreal Convention, 1999, which India applies to international carriage, significantly modernises and enhances carrier liability compared to the Warsaw Convention. These laws collectively define the rights of passengers and the obligations of airlines in the event of accidents.

Carriage by Air Act, 1972

This is the most important law in India pertaining to air carriers’ liability for losses, damages, fatalities, and bodily injuries caused by aviation accidents. Indian aviation liability law conforms to international standards by incorporating:

• The Hague Protocol (1955)
• The Montreal Convention (1999)
• The Warsaw Convention (1929)

Key Legal Aspects Related to Aviation Liability in Air Crash Cases

• Sections 3 & 4: The Act gives effect to the Warsaw Convention, the Hague Protocol, and the Montreal Convention in India, unifying rules for international and domestic carriage by air.
• Section 5: The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death, wounding, or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident causing the damage took place on board the aircraft or during embarking/disembarking.

Liability for Baggage and Cargo

The carrier is liable for destruction, loss, or damage to registered baggage and cargo, and for losses caused by delay, unless it can prove all necessary measures were taken to avoid the damage.

Strict Liability

The Act imposes strict liability on air carriers for passenger deaths or bodily injuries resulting from accidents that occur onboard the aircraft or during embarkation or disembarkation, in accordance with the requirements of the Montreal Convention (made applicable by notification under Section 8 of the Act).

The carrier is liable for up to 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per passenger, according to the Montreal Convention, which is subject to periodic adjustments by government notification.

The carrier can protect itself above this threshold by showing: “The carrier, its employees, or agents did not cause the damage through negligence or any wrongdoing.” (Article 21, Montreal Convention)

Application to Domestic and International Carriage

The Carriage by Air Act, 1972, Section 8(2), gives the Central Government the authority to widen its provisions to domestic carriage, which is precisely what has been done. The Act was originally meant for international carriage. The Montreal Convention liability regulations are now applied to certain domestic flights in order to preserve consistency in liability requirements for domestic as well as international flights.

Limitation Period

There is a strict two-year limitation period for bringing claims (Montreal Convention, Art. 35).

No Escape from Liability

Under Article 26 of the Montreal Convention, as it relates to the Act, any clause in a contract that seeks to exempt the carrier from liability or reduce the liability limits outlined in the Convention is considered void. This provision guarantees that carriers cannot escape liability through contractual clauses or disclaimers, thus safeguarding passengers.

Aircraft Act, 1934

This legislation establishes the liability framework for aircraft operators in India, imposing stringent obligations to ensure accountability and provide compensation to victims of air crashes.

• Aircraft operators are strictly liable for injuries, fatalities, or property damage resulting from their operations, meaning they are responsible regardless of fault.
• The Act creates a compensation mechanism where an authority designated by the Central Government determines compensation for direct injuries or losses caused under the Act.
• A right of appeal is also available for those affected.

Section 5: Power of Central Government to make rules regarding the manufacture, operation, and safety of aircraft, including liability and insurance requirements

Section 7: Power to make rules for the investigation of accidents, establishing the legal basis for air crash inquiries.

Aircraft Rules, 1937

These rules, made under the Aircraft Act, 1934, provide the operational, safety, and reporting framework that directly impacts how liability is determined and managed after an accident.

The Aircraft Rules of 1937 and Their Relevance to Aviation Liability in Air Crash Situations

Rule 29: All aircraft must be registered and flown following the terms and conditions of their airworthiness certifications.

Impact on liability: In liability procedures resulting from an accident, non-compliance may be used as proof of carelessness or culpability.

Rule 161: Prohibits the operation of any aircraft without a valid certificate of airworthiness issued by the Director-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).

Impact on liability: In the event of an accident, operating an aircraft without this certification or neglecting to maintain it by established requirements may immediately result in operator carelessness or strict liability.

Rule 68: Requires that proper authorities, such as local police and district magistrates, be notified of any accident resulting in death, serious injury, or significant damage within 24 hours.

Impact on liability: If an operator fails to report as required, they may face fines and weaken their defence against liability claims.

All accidents are investigated by qualified authorities like the DGCA or Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), thanks to the 1937 Aircraft Rules and the 2012 Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules.

Impact on liability: The results of the investigation serve as the factual foundation for identifying the crash’s cause and apportioning blame.

Can Airlines Invoke the ‘Act of God’ Defence?

To prevent or reduce liability for damages resulting from air crashes or accidents, carriers may try to employ the Act of God (Vis Major) as a defence under aviation liability law.

Strict liability is applicable up to a certain limit, regardless of negligence, under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (which applies international accords like the Montreal Convention, 1999).

If a claim exceeds the set limit, an airline may avoid responsibility by proving that the damage occurred under one of the following circumstances:

• The event was caused entirely by natural forces, such as an unprecedented storm or earthquake.
• There was no human intervention or negligence that contributed to the loss. The event was unforeseeable and could not have been prevented through reasonable care or foresight.

Limitations in Aviation Law

Conventions such as the Montreal Convention and the Carriage by Air Act of 1972 expose airlines to strict liability up to a specified limit, regardless of fault.

Within these parameters, an “Act of God” does not release airlines of liability.

Airlines must show that:

• The accident was completely a result of an Act of God and that they were not involved in it.
• They took all appropriate safety measures to avoid the damage.

This defence may be undermined by any operational, maintenance, or safety failures.

Example

The Act of God defence might be possible if an airline complied with all safety procedures and an entirely unexpected and unprecedented volcanic eruption caused an aircraft crash.

The defence won’t be applicable if the crash was caused by a storm that might have been reasonably predicted and avoided, or if there was any negligence (such as disregarding weather warnings).

Even with the stringent legal standards, airlines can invoke the Act of God defence to protect themselves from unlimited liability that exceeds the strict liability cap established in the Carriage by Air Act of 1972. It is up to them to prove that the incident was caused solely by an unforeseen natural event and that they acted neither negligently nor incompetently. The defence will be forfeited if there is any failure in maintenance, safety measures, or reasonable precautions.

Case Laws

In re Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans (767 F.2d 1151, 5th Cir. 1985, US)
In 1982, Pan Am Flight 759 crashed near New Orleans due to a microburst wind shear, killing all on board and several on the ground. Over 300 lawsuits followed. Courts held that although the crash involved a natural event, Pan Am was liable because airlines are expected to foresee and guard against such hazards. The “Act of God” defence was rejected since reasonable precautions could have prevented the tragedy.
Indian Airlines Corporation v. Madhuri Chowdhuri, AIR 1965 Cal 252 (India)
In 1953, an Indian Airlines aircraft crashed shortly after take-off from Nagpur, killing all passengers except the pilot. The widow and children of one passenger sued for compensation, claiming negligence. Indian Airlines cited an exemption clause in the ticket that limited liability for passenger death or injury, even due to negligence.

• The Calcutta High Court ruled that the exemption clause was valid and did not violate public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
• There was no conclusive evidence of negligence by the airline.
• The Carriage by Air Act of 1934 did not apply, as it did not cover internal carriage at the time.

This case highlighted the freedom of contract for carriers to limit liability and the need for stronger statutory passenger protections, which were later implemented through legal reforms.

Emerging Challenges in Aviation Law

Dealing with the risks of plane crashes has become a major challenge for aviation law. The Air India Express crash at Calicut in 2020 is a painful example of how extreme weather — now increasingly driven by climate change — makes it harder to separate human mistakes from unavoidable natural disasters.

This uncertainty complicates how liability is determined under laws like the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and international rules such as the Montreal Convention, 1999.

Many argue that the compensation limits set by the Montreal Convention no longer reflect today’s reality, as rising costs and inflation leave victims’ families struggling with unfairly low payouts.

Meanwhile, aviation law faces new pressures as courts are asked to consider the industry’s impact on climate change, all while trying to uphold the limited liability protections given to airlines.
Conclusion

The crash of Air India Flight 171 exposes the pressing legal and ethical challenges that aviation disasters present. Modern aviation law, particularly India’s Carriage by Air Act of 1972 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, has decisively shifted away from outdated defences like “Act of God.”

These laws now impose strict liability on airlines, compelling them to demonstrate that they have taken all necessary precautions.

The current risk landscape, driven by climate change, increasing environmental litigation, and urgent calls for fair compensation, demands a thorough revaluation of liability limits and regulatory oversight. It is vital to strengthen these laws to ensure that victims’ rights are fiercely defended, accountability is unyielding, and aviation law adapts effectively to contemporary challenges.

Award-Winning Article Written By: Ms.Dravya K Ashok