The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file an affidavit on a plea seeking regulatory guidelines to control unpredictable fluctuations in airfare. The bench questioned the delay, stating, “What is this? What prevents you from filing an affidavit.”
The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file an affidavit for a petition seeking regulatory guidelines to rein in unpredictable fluctuations in airfare and related charges imposed by private airlines in India.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the government to submit an application along with an affidavit explaining (i) why the affidavit has not been filed yet and (ii) why additional time is being sought.
Earlier, On November 17 last year, the top court had sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea filed by social activist S Laxminarayanan.
The petition urged the creation of a robust and independent regulator to ensure transparency and passenger protection across India’s civil aviation sector.
At the start of Thursday’s hearing, the petitioner’s counsel told the court that the Centre had not filed any reply so far.
The Centre’s counsel said it was considering framing rules, and also referred to the evolving situation in the Middle East when pressed. The bench questioned why an affidavit could not be filed and said the Centre had already been granted multiple opportunities.
The bench remarked,
“What is this? What prevents you from filing an affidavit.”
In response, the Centre’s counsel informed the Court that they were considering drafting new rules.
The bench then told them to submit a proper response, saying,
“You file an affidavit and place everything on record. Why can’t you file an affidavit? What is this stand of the Union? Three times we have granted you time.”
The Centre’s counsel sought three weeks’ time to file the affidavit. The bench declined this request and ordered that the affidavit be filed next week.
The bench said,
“You file your affidavit and say whatever you want to say. Your affidavit must come by next Friday (May 8),”
In its order, the bench noted that although notice had been issued on the petition on November 17 last year and time had been granted for the respondents to file an affidavit, “till date no affidavit has been filed”.
It added that even during Thursday’s hearing, the Centre’s counsel had once again requested more time, but the court did not agree.
The bench held that an application along with an affidavit explaining the delay and the request for further time must be filed within a week and listed the matter again on May 11.
Earlier, on February 23, the Centre had told the apex court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the plea. During the hearing on January 19, the Supreme Court indicated it would step in regarding “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfares and flagged sharp price rises during festivals.
The court had described airline fare hikes during such periods as exploitation, and directed the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to file responses.
In November last year, the court had issued notices to the Centre, the DGCA, and the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India seeking their replies.
The plea alleged that private airlines, without credible justification, had reduced the free check-in baggage allowance for economy class passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg thereby converting what was earlier part of the ticketed service into a new revenue stream”.
It further argued that the airlines’ policy allowing only one piece of check-in baggage, along with the absence of any rebate, compensation, or passenger benefit for those who do not check in baggage, shows the “arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the measure”.
The petitioner contended that no authority currently has the power to review or cap airfares or ancillary charges, enabling airlines to exploit consumers through hidden charges and unpredictable pricing.
It said,
“unregulated, opaque and exploitative conduct of airlines manifesting in arbitrary fare hikes, unilateral reduction of services, absence of on-ground grievance redressal and unjustified dynamic pricing algorithms directly infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights to equality, freedom of movement and life with dignity”.
It argued that the lack of regulatory safeguards enables arbitrary fare increases particularly during festivals or disruptions affecting poor and last-minute travellers disproportionately.
The plea 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 warranted urgent judicial intervention.
The plea said,
“Arbitrary fare hikes during emergencies deny vulnerable citizens this right, especially when they are compelled to choose air travel out of necessity rather than luxury,”
The petition stated that there is no rule preventing airlines from increasing prices based on demand, and that allowing such freedom in essential services is unjustifiable. It also argued that dignity includes access to essential services such as emergency transport on fair and non-exploitative terms.