The SpiceJet DGCA review concerns the airline’s broader operational and financial position and should not be treated as a fresh safety finding, SpiceJet Limited said in a BSE filing on October 5, 2026.

The clarification followed an exchange query about a September 22, 2026, NDTV Profit report on scrutiny of the airline’s finances and the consequent movement in its securities price. BSE classified the filing as rumour verification under Regulation 30(11).

SpiceJet acknowledged that it was aware of monitoring by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. It said this oversight should not be construed as a new declaration or finding of safety concerns against the company. DGCA routinely conducts safety audits, surveillance and spot checks of airlines, it added.

Airline cites surveillance and audit history

To support its clarification, SpiceJet set out its earlier regulatory and operational audit outcomes:

  • During 2024, DGCA conducted 266 spot checks on SpiceJet under enhanced surveillance. The airline said it was subsequently removed from that regime after the identified deficiencies were suitably rectified.
  • For 2025, SpiceJet said it was the only airline with zero Level 1 findings in DGCA safety audits.
  • The company renewed its IATA Operational Safety Audit certification in March 2025 following an international audit of its operational management and control systems. The certification is valid until March 2027, according to the filing.

These statements were presented as the airline’s explanation for distinguishing the current operational and financial review from a fresh finding of safety deficiencies.

No undisclosed material event identified

SpiceJet said it was unaware of any negotiations, arrangements or transactions related to the report that remained undisclosed and required disclosure under Regulation 30 of the SEBI LODR Regulations.

It also said it knew of no undisclosed material information connected with the report that could explain trading in its securities. The company described the price movement as market-driven and said it could not comment on the specific reasons.

The airline said it was unaware of any new regulatory or legal proceeding arising specifically from the report that required disclosure and had not already been disclosed. As the matters did not constitute new material information, to its knowledge, SpiceJet said no separate Regulation 30 disclosure was required.