India’s decision to close its airspace during the initial phase of Operation Sindoor aligned with measures commonly taken by nations to safeguard sovereignty and protect citizens during cross-border conflicts. This approach is also rooted in the historical evolution of India-Pakistan aviation ties in the post-Partition era, write Poonam Verma Sengupta and Priyakshi Bhatnagar.
India has successfully navigated a period of heightened tensions with its neighbouring country, during which both India and Pakistan closed their respective airspace. In response, national security agencies implemented precautionary measures at key transportation hubs.
In India, the authority to regulate, restrict, or close airspace is a sovereign right exercised by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA), the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of External Affairs, and the Indian Air Force (IAF), in coordination with the Airports Authority of India (AAI). The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) works alongside these bodies, as well as the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to assess security risks and enforce airspace restrictions. BCAS oversees screening procedures and ensures the implementation of security measures such as no-fly zones and restricted air corridors.
The DGCA is responsible for enforcing government decisions on airspace regulation. It ensures civil aviation compliance and safety through directives, operator instructions, and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs), which provide crucial updates on airspace changes or risks. The DGCA also communicates India’s regulatory stance to international aviation bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), particularly when global air routes are affected.
During the heightened security situation, the BCAS directed all civilian airports to increase vigilance, focusing on critical areas such as baggage screening and cargo handling. The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), responsible for aviation security at Indian airports, was tasked with overseeing baggage screening and cargo processing. Additionally, temporary no-fly zones were established in sensitive regions, and the IAF intensified surveillance over Indian airspace to detect and intercept potential threats, including hostile aircraft or drones.
Safeguarding National Sovereignty
The reciprocal airspace restrictions imposed by India and Pakistan affected at least 670 domestic and international flight routes. By 8 May 2025, industry data indicated an 11 per cent decline in daily domestic flights. Airlines faced longer routes, additional fuel stops, extended flight durations, and increased operational costs.
The legal and diplomatic framework governing international air transport is built on three core principles. Each state has full sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, including territorial waters, and controls all aviation activities within that space. A state has the discretion to allow or deny aircraft entry based on policies and security concerns. Airspace over the high seas and other regions beyond national jurisdiction remains open to all states’ aircraft, ensuring free international travel and transport.
These air sovereignty principles reinforce the dominant role of national governments in shaping international civil aviation. At the global level, nations have established implicit and explicit agreements—known as conventions—governing airspace use. These agreements serve the interests of both the general public and the international community.
Following World War I, the Paris Convention was signed in 1919 to regulate international aerial navigation. That same year, the International Air Traffic Association, the precursor to today’s International Air Transport Association (IATA), was founded in The Hague to foster airline cooperation, primarily across Europe.
In 1944, the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention, was signed by 52 nations. India ratified it on 1 March 1947. The Chicago Convention recognises that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its airspace, defining ‘territory’ as the land areas and adjacent territorial waters under a state’s sovereignty.
The Chicago Convention establishes fundamental aviation principles. It affirms each state’s full control over its airspace, restricting foreign military aircraft and drones without prior consent while encouraging standardised aviation practices. It mandates equal access to public airports and aviation infrastructure for all member states, alongside domestic airlines. States may prohibit foreign aircraft from flying over certain areas or their entire territory for military or public safety reasons, provided such restrictions apply uniformly to all nations. The convention also ensures that its provisions do not limit a state’s freedom to take necessary actions during wartime.
ICAO and Indo-Pak Aviation Disputes
The Chicago Convention led to the formation of ICAO, a UN agency that oversees international civil aviation regulations. The principle of self-preservation has long been acknowledged by peacekeeping institutions. In a 1996 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that “the Court cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence, in accordance with Article 51 of the [UN] Charter.”
India and Pakistan have previously invoked the Chicago Convention in diplomatic disputes. In 1952, India filed the first-ever case before the ICAO Council against Pakistan, alleging a breach of the Chicago Convention and the International Air Services Transit Agreement after Pakistan denied Indian aircraft permission to fly over its territory to Afghanistan. The ICAO Council encouraged direct negotiations, leading to a settlement by June 1953 without a formal ruling.
In 1971, India suspended Pakistani overflight rights following the hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft by Kashmiri militants. Pakistan submitted a complaint to the ICAO Council, claiming India’s actions violated the Chicago Convention and Transit Agreement. India challenged ICAO’s jurisdiction, citing previous suspensions of the agreements during the 1965 India-Pakistan conflict. In 1972, the International Court of Justice upheld ICAO’s authority over the matter. However, the dispute was overtaken by the India-Pakistan War later that year, and overflight rights were eventually restored through negotiations.
More recently, in 2019, India raised concerns with ICAO after Pakistan denied overflight clearance for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s aircraft. However, ICAO clarified that flights carrying national leaders are considered ‘state aircraft’ and fall outside the Convention’s jurisdiction.
Amid airspace restrictions, the DGCA directed airlines to immediately implement enhanced passenger handling measures to maintain comfort, safety, and regulatory compliance. Key measures included transparent communication about route changes, ensuring adequate onboard medical supplies and emergency services, preparing call centres and customer service teams to assist with delays and missed connections, and coordinating efforts among flight operations, ground handling, inflight services, and medical teams.
As airline operations gradually return to normal, challenges remain. However, Indian aviation authorities are now better prepared to address any future security threats.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Poonam Verma Sengupta, Partner, and Priyakshi Bhatnagar, Senior Associate, JSA Advocates & Solicitors.