The Supreme Court of India asked the Centre to rationalise airfares after the Bench noted airlines charge widely different prices on the same route, telling Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to give people relief from such discrepancies.
The Supreme Court observed that airfares need to be rationalised and directed the Centre to provide some relief to air passengers.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that on the same day, airlines operating on the same route charge different fares.
The bench made the following observation while speaking to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta,
“Try to give some relief to the people because of the discrepancy. On the same day, flights to the same sector, one airline charges Rs.8,000 while the other airline charges Rs.18,000 for the economy class,”
Following the solicitor general’s submission that a new 2024 enactment has come into effect and that corresponding rules are currently under consultation, Justice Mehta said there should be rationalisation of airfares.
The solicitor general also stated that the government is not disputing the issue and is treating it as non-adversarial, while considering the matter in detail.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by social activist S Laxminarayanan.
The plea seeks the creation of a robust and independent regulator for the civil aviation sector, along with regulatory directions to ensure transparency and passenger protection. It also asks for action against unpredictable fluctuations in airfare and ancillary charges charged by private airlines in India.
Senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that while rules already exist under the Aircraft Act, 1937, the issue is that they have not been implemented effectively.
The solicitor general agreed that older rules are still in place, but said new rules are being formulated under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, which came into effect in January 2025.
Srivastava further argued that until the new rules are framed, the earlier rules continue to apply and provide authority for DGCA intervention if airlines are found to be charging predatory or excessive fares.
He stated that despite the existing power, directions are not being issued, saying,
“They are not issuing any directions. The rules are there, the power is there but it is a case of non-exercise of powers,”
After hearing these submissions, the bench asked Srivastava to respond to the counter-affidavit filed by the Centre, and it also recorded the solicitor general’s submission that consultations for the new rule framework are underway.
The bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on July 13.
Earlier, on April 30, the court had pulled up the Centre for not filing its affidavit in connection with the petition seeking regulatory guidelines to curb unpredictable fluctuations in airfares and ancillary charges. The court had asked the Centre to file an application along with an affidavit explaining why it had not filed the affidavit earlier and why more time was being sought.
Earlier, On November 17, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Centre and other respondents on the plea.
Additionally, On February 23, the Centre told the court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the petition.
During a hearing on January 19, the court had indicated that it would step in regarding unpredictable fluctuations in airfares, including the sharp increase during festivals. It had characterised the airlines’ rise in fares as exploitation and asked the Centre and the DGCA to file replies.
The petition also claimed that private airlines, without credible justification, had reduced the free check-in baggage allowance for economy class passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg, converting what was previously part of the ticketed service into a new revenue stream. It argued that the policy permitting only a single piece for check-in, along with the absence of rebate, compensation, or benefits for passengers who do not use check-in baggage, is arbitrary and discriminatory.
The plea further contended that no authority currently has the power to review or cap airfares or ancillary fees, enabling airlines to exploit consumers through hidden charges and unpredictable pricing.
It alleged that “unregulated, opaque and exploitative” practices including arbitrary fare hikes, unilateral reduction of services, lack of on-ground grievance redressal, and dynamic pricing algorithms violate citizens’ fundamental rights to equality, freedom of movement, and life with dignity.
It also claimed that the State’s failure to regulate fare algorithms, cancellation policies, service continuity, and grievance mechanisms amounts to a dereliction of constitutional duty, and called for urgent judicial intervention.
The petition asserted that there is no rule preventing airlines from increasing prices based on demand and that allowing such discretion under essential services is unjustified.