SC slams Centre for delay in filing affidavit on airfare fluctuations
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Centre for failing to file its affidavit in a petition seeking regulatory guidelines to control “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfares and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in India.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the Centre to file an application along with an affidavit explaining why it had not been filed earlier and the reasons for seeking more time.
The matter pertains to a petition filed by social activist S Laxminarayanan, who has sought the creation of a robust and independent regulator to ensure transparency and passenger protection in the civil aviation sector. The Supreme Court had issued notices in the case on November 17 last year, seeking responses from the Centre, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India.
At the start of Thursday’s hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that no response had yet been filed by the Centre. The Centre’s counsel referred to the evolving situation in the Middle East while explaining the delay.
“What is this? What prevents you from filing an affidavit,” the bench asked.
The Centre’s counsel submitted that the government was considering framing rules and sought additional time. However, the bench strongly objected, 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 counsel requested three more weeks, but the bench refused, directing that the affidavit be filed within a week. “Your affidavit must come by next Friday (May 8),” the court said.
In its order, the bench noted that despite notice being issued on November 17 last year and repeated extensions, no affidavit had been filed so far. It further stated that even on Thursday, the Centre sought more time, which the court declined to grant.
“We are not willing to accept the request. Let an appropriate application along with an affidavit giving reasons for why affidavit has not been filed and why further time is being sought be filed within a week,” the bench said, listing the matter for hearing on May 11.
Earlier, on February 23, the Centre had informed the apex court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the petition.
During a hearing on January 19, the Supreme Court had observed that it would examine the issue of “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfares, particularly the steep rise during festivals, and had termed such pricing practices as “exploitation,” directing responses from the Centre and DGCA.
In November last year, the court had also issued notices to the Centre, DGCA, and Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India on the plea.
The petition alleged that private airlines had, without credible justification, reduced free check-in baggage allowance for economy class passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg, thereby converting a previously included service into a new revenue stream.
It further stated that the policy allowing only a single piece of check-in baggage, without any rebate or benefit for passengers who do not use the facility, was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The plea argued that no authority currently has the power to regulate or cap airfares and ancillary charges, enabling airlines to exploit passengers through hidden fees and unpredictable pricing.
It also claimed that such practices, including arbitrary fare hikes, reduced services, lack of grievance redressal, and dynamic pricing algorithms, violate citizens’ fundamental rights to equality, freedom of movement, and life with dignity.
According to the petition, the absence of regulatory safeguards leads to sharp fare increases during festivals and disruptions, disproportionately affecting poor and last-minute travellers.
It further contended that government inaction in regulating fare algorithms, cancellation policies, service standards, and grievance mechanisms amounts to a failure of constitutional duty, warranting urgent judicial intervention.
The plea added that airlines currently have unrestricted freedom to increase fares based on demand, which is unjustifiable for what it described as an essential service.
It also argued that the right to dignity includes access to essential transport services on fair and non-exploitative terms, stating that arbitrary fare hikes during emergencies deprive vulnerable citizens of this right when air travel is often a necessity rather than a luxury.
With PTI inputs