Airfares need to be ‘rationalised’, says Supreme Court

The DGCA maintained that the wider issues such as surge pricing during festivals and holidays, were already being examined | Photo Credit: PRIYANSHU SINGH

The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Union government to examine measures for the rationalisation of airfares, pointing to the stark disparity in ticket prices charged by different airlines for the same route on a single day. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by social activist S Laxminarayan, seeking the formulation of binding regulatory norms to address arbitrary airfare pricing and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines during festival periods, holidays and emergencies.

Appearing for the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, had already come into force and that rules under the new legislation are at the consultation stage. “There’s a new Act that has come into force... The rules are in the process of consultation. We will consider all the aspects,” Mehta submitted.

Interim Measures

Justice Mehta, however, observed that the Centre ought to consider interim measures to provide relief to passengers affected by erratic and widely fluctuating airfare prices. “Try to provide some relief to passengers in view of this disparity. On the same day, for flights operating on the same route, one airline charges ₹8,000 while another charges ₹18,000 for economy class,” he remarked.

Mehta acknowledged the concern, but maintained that any long-term resolution could only be achieved through the formulation of statutory rules under the new aviation regime. “I am not disputing the problem, but the solution has to be by statutory rules,” he said. However, senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner, contended that sufficient powers already exist under the prevailing regulatory framework, but are not being exercised by the authorities. He submitted that even under the erstwhile Aircraft Act, 1934, authorities were empowered to intervene in cases where airlines engaged in predatory or excessive pricing practices.

“They are not issuing any directions. The rules are there, the power is there, but it is a case of non-exercise of powers,” he submitted. Concurring with the contention, the Bench observed that some degree of rationalisation in airfare pricing was necessary, and asked the Centre how much time it would require to finalise the rules under the 2024 Act.

Mehta responded that the rule-making exercise under the new enactment was underway and could take “some time” to conclude. Accordingly, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing in July, and granted time to the petitioner to file a reply to the Centre’s affidavit.

The petition, filed through advocate Charu Mathur, pointed out that there is currently no regulatory authority vested with the power to review or cap airfares, enabling airlines to exploit consumers through hidden fees and unpredictable pricing. It said such practices disproportionately affect economically weaker passengers, who are often compelled to purchase tickets during periods of peak surge pricing, while wealthier travellers can plan and book in advance.

New rules

In its affidavit before the court, the Union government stated that the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the DGCA were at an “advanced stage” of finalising draft rules under the 2024 Act, which would replace the erstwhile Aircraft Rules, 1937. It further stated that the authorities were “making every effort” to fast-track the process in light of the “emerging scenario”.

The DGCA maintained that the wider issues raised in the petition, such as surge pricing during festivals and holidays, baggage fees, and algorithm-based fluctuations in airfares, were already being examined as part of the ongoing exercise to frame new aviation rules. It argued that the PIL may now be treated as a set of “representations or suggestions” and disposed of accordingly.

“The government’s commitment to making air travel affordable is reflected in its shift from a command-and-control model to a deregulated regime with necessary safeguards. The Union intervenes decisively when market behaviour threatens public interest, as seen during the pandemic, the Mahakumbh, and similar regional disruptions,” the affidavit stated.

The Centre pointed out that the rule-making exercise was subject to several layers of statutory scrutiny, including Parliamentary oversight mandated under Section 35 of the 2024 Act, which stipulates that the proposed rules must be placed before both Houses of Parliament for 30 days. “This rigorous statutory process is essential to ensure that the proposed rules are transparent, robust, and in the public interest,” the affidavit added.

Published on May 15, 2026