Boardrooms must not be caught dozing over risks: The IndiGo fiasco ought to splash them awake

Large corporations are not governed for profitable quarters alone, but for business continuity. And when a company that carries a majority share of national air traffic suffers a system-wide breakdown, questions must be asked beyond operational factors. In particular, of board accountability.True, boards do not run a business’s daily operations.

But, in the case of IndiGo, the board’s role mustn’t escape scrutiny. New safety regulations had been notified well in advance. Staffing implications were evident.

Software changes were scheduled events. Seasonal congestion was predictable. These were not random events that collided, but known pressures that converged.

Boards exist to examine precisely this kind of convergence risk. Their mandate goes beyond reviewing earnings or expansion plans. It includes testing whether the firm’s management has built operational depth, surplus capacity and crisis-readiness.

IndiGo’s experience raises fundamental questions. Was staffing resilience examined once it was clear that safety norms would tighten? Were contingency protocols assessed before large-scale IT deployment? Were communication systems stress-tested? Did the company’s directors receive regular, unfiltered indicators of operational fragility? If they did, did they press the management into urgency mode?The airline’s breakdown in communication with passengers during its worst phases of flight disruption also suggests an absence of oversight. Airline systems displayed operational status that diverged from airport data.