One airline charges Rs 8,000, another Rs 18,000’: SC questions airfare disparity

The Supreme Court on Friday said there should be some rationalisation of airfares and asked the Centre to provide relief to flyers A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta flagged that on the same day one airline flying in the same sector charges a particular airfare while other charges a different airfareTry to give some relief to the people because of the discrepancy On the same day flights to the same sector one airline charges Rs 8000 while the other airline charges Rs 18000 for the economy class the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the CentreJustice Mehta said There should be some rationalisation of airfares after the solicitor general said that a new enactment of 2024 has come into effect and the corresponding rules are in the process of consultation Mehta said the government was not disputing the problem and is treating the issue as nonadversarial and considering all aspectsThe bench was hearing a plea filed by social activist S Laxminarayanan who sought a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector and regulatory guidelines to control the unpredictable fluctuations in airfare and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in IndiaSenior advocate Ravindra Srivastava appearing for Laxminarayanan submitted that rules are already there under the Aircraft Act of 1937 but the problem is that they were not followed Mehta agreed that old rules are in place but new ones being formulated under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam of 2024 that came into effect in January 2025Srivastava said till the new rules are framed the old rules will continue and it says that if the DGCA is satisfied that in a particular situation the airlines are indulging in charging predatory or excessive fares it will issue directions They are not issuing any directions The rules are there the power is there but it is a case of nonexercise of powers he submittedThe bench asked Srivastava to reply to the counteraffidavit filed by the Centre and recorded the solicitor generals submission that consultation process for formulation of rules under the new regime is going on The bench posted the matter for hearing on July 13On April 30 the top court pulled up the Centre for not filing its affidavit on a petition which sought regulatory guidelines to control the unpredictable fluctuations in airfare and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in India It had asked the Centre to file an application along with an affidavit giving reasons for why the affidavit has not been filed and why further time was sought for itOn November 17 last year the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on Laxminarayanans plea seeking sought a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sectorOn February 23 the Centre told the apex court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the pleaWhile hearing the matter on January 19 the top court said it would interfere with the unpredictable fluctuations in airfares and flagged the exorbitant rise during festivals The top court had termed the exorbitant rise of airfares by the airlines as exploitation and asked the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation DGCA to file their replies on the pleaThe plea claimed that all private airlines have without any credible justification reduced the free checkin 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 streamIt said the new policy of permitting only a single piece for checkin and the absence of any rebate compensation or benefit to passengers who do not avail themselves of checkin baggage demonstrates the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the measureThe plea claimed that currently no authority has the power to review or cap airfares or ancillary fees allowing the airlines to exploit consumers through hidden charges and unpredictable pricing It said the unregulated opaque and exploitative conduct of airlines manifesting in arbitrary fare hikes unilateral reduction of services absence of onground grievance redressal and unjustified dynamic pricing algorithms directly infringes upon citizens fundamental rights to equality freedom of movement and life with dignityIt said the absence of regulatory safeguards results in arbitrary fare hikes especially during festivals or weather disruptions which disproportionately harm poor and lastminute travellers The plea said inaction by the State in regulating fare algorithms cancellation policies service continuity and grievance mechanisms constitutes a dereliction of its constitutional duty and calls for urgent judicial interventionIt said there is no rule to stop the airlines from increasing prices based on demand and allowing them such freedom under essential services is unjustifiableThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever