The petitioner has sought an independent mechanism to address predatory pricing, arguing that the government’s assurances of new rules are not enough to protect millions of air travellers
The Supreme Court is set to hear on July 13 a plea for an “independent adjudicatory mechanism” to hear air passengers’ grievances about “predatory ticket pricing” after a holiday season which saw fares sizzle, hit the stratosphere and remain there much to the consternation of approximately 10 lakh air travellers every day.
The petitioner said the government’s answer that “new rules are being framed, trust the process” was just not enough. The case is listed before a Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, almost two months after an affidavit by the government and a response to that by the petitioner was filed in May.
Government’s Assurance
The government had assured that it remained “deeply committed” to the welfare and interests of air passengers while acknowledging that air travel had “transitioned from a luxury to an indispensable service for millions of citizens.” It had emphasised on the sovereign responsibility, manifested in the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam of 2024, to “protect consumers from exploitation through predatory or excessive tariff rates.”
The May 5 affidavit had assured that preparation of new draft rules to replace a nearly century-old Aircraft Rules of 1937 was at an “advanced stage.” It had reiterated that the government was “resolutely vigilant to protect passengers from unfair treatment or algorithmic profiteering” by airlines.
Petitioner’s Rejoinder
However, a rejoinder by the petitioner, S. Laxminarayanan, indicated that these were mere platitudes meant to comfort. Nothing had changed on the ground despite the passing of sufficient time since public grievances about airfare surfaced in the public domain.
For one, a Joint Parliamentary Committee report of March last year was ignored by the government and authorities, the petitioner said. It was inexplicable how the government and the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had been inactive until this petition had been filed in the apex court.
The Core Argument
The petitioner said that passengers remain vulnerable to price surges despite DGCA circulars which require domestic airlines to furnish monthly route-wise tariff data and to report significant fare changes within 24 hours. The court is expected to hear the petitioner’s argument on Monday that airline service came within the ambit of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981. Air travel was a fundamental right, and a lifeline for people not only in India but across the globe. Prohibitive fares were a violation of this basic right.
Highlighting the wrinkles in the civil aviation sector which gravely affect travellers, the petitioner said Rule 135(4) of the Aircraft Rules expressly empowered the DGCA to issue binding directions against any airline that establishes predatory tariff or indulges in oligopolistic practices.
Parliamentary Panel Recommendations
The petitioner drew the court’s attention to the March 2025 report of the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture for the constitution of an independent monitoring body, along the lines of Securities and Exchange Board of India, with quasi-judicial powers to enforce reasonable tariffs. The Committee had pointed to how the term ‘reasonable profit’ was clearly defined anywhere in the existing framework, leading to arbitrary fare fixation. The Rajya Sabha panel had recommended that air tariffs must be fixed on a ‘cost-plus-reasonable-profit basis.’
Other Key Demands
The petitioner has sought measures against the abrupt shutdown of airlines, which, according to him, reduce the supply of seats and drive fares to exploitative levels overnight. He has also highlighted the need for a dedicated Aviation Disaster Management Unit within the civil aviation framework to deal with mass flight cancellations or sudden airline shutdowns. Further, the petitioner has challenged the “arbitrary” reduction of free baggage allowance from 25 kg to 15 kg as “unethical and without justification.”
Cumulatively, he submitted, these measures amounted to a “systematic and unchecked transfer of financial burden from airline operators to passengers.”
