The Union government has urged the Supreme Court to refrain from continuing its monitoring of public interest cases (PIL) challenging volatile air fares and airline charges, noting that the comprehensive legal rule-making process is already underway and the Center is trying to speed up the process in view of the “emerging scenario”.
In an affidavit filed before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) asserted that the broader issues raised in the petition, including price hikes during festivals and holidays, baggage charges and algorithm-based price fluctuations, are under active consideration as part of the formulation of new aviation rules under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam (BVA) Act, 2024.
The Center also noted that the pending PIL should now be treated as mere “endorsements or proposals” of the draft rules and disposed of, arguing that any complaint against the final rules could constitute a new cause of action.
“It is submitted that the present petition may be sought to be treated as representations or proposals for the draft rules and the petition be disposed of because the finalization of the rules would become a separate cause of action, if the petitioner is at all aggrieved thereby,” the affidavit said.
The matter was brought before the court on Monday but was adjourned without any substantive hearing. Social activist S Laxminarayan, through advocate Charu Mathur, filed a PIL in the matter.
The affidavit comes in response to the court’s repeated concerns over sharp and unexpected rise in air ticket prices, especially during festival seasons, emergencies and major events like the Kumbh Mela, when the court had earlier commented on the alleged “exploitation” by the airlines.
Seeking to reassure the court that passengers’ interests remain central to policy considerations, the Center said air travel was now an “indispensable service for millions of citizens” and that the government remained “strongly committed” to consumer welfare even while maintaining a competitive aviation market.
“The association’s goal is to ensure a healthy and competitive industry while remaining resolutely vigilant to protect passengers from unfair treatment or algorithmic profiteering,” the affidavit stated.
The government noted that the enactment of the BVA had resulted in a shift away from the nearly century-old aircraft law framework, necessitating a comprehensive overhaul of dependent aviation regulations.
According to the affidavit, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation are currently in the “advanced stages” of finalizing the draft rules that will replace the earlier 1937 aircraft rules.
The Center stressed that this practice involves multiple layers of legal scrutiny, including parliamentary oversight under Section 35 of the 2024 Act, which requires proposed rules to be presented to both Houses of Parliament for 30 days.
“This rigorous legal process is necessary to ensure that the proposed rules are transparent, robust, and in the public interest,” the affidavit said.
Meanwhile, the government informed the court that efforts are being made to expedite deliberations considering the “emerging scenario”.
“The Union is making every effort to accelerate these deliberations in the wake of the emerging scenario,” he added, adding that the government considers the political isolation law “non-hostile.”
The Center also defended the current deregulated pricing model, arguing that liberalization of the aviation sector has significantly improved connectivity and affordability while allowing the government to intervene in exceptional situations that threaten the public interest.
“The government’s commitment to making air travel affordable is reflected in its shift from a command-and-control model to an unregulated system, with necessary safeguards. The Union intervenes decisively when market behavior threatens the public interest, as we have seen during the pandemic, Mahakumbh, and similar regional disturbances,” the affidavit added.
Laxminarayan’s petition challenges what he described as “unregulated, opaque and exploitative” air travel practices adopted by private airlines, especially during festive seasons and emergency situations. The petition also raises complaints about reduced baggage allowances and higher surcharges imposed on passengers.
The petition seeks directions to set binding standards on air fares, cap pricing during peak demand periods, regulate surcharges and establish an independent aviation regulatory body to protect the interests of consumers.
During hearings earlier this year, the Supreme Court repeatedly expressed concern about volatile airline ticket prices. In February, the bench described the case as a “very serious concern” and noted that such matters would not normally justify invoking jurisdiction under Article 32 unless there is a significant public interest. During a hearing in January, the court said: “Look at the exploitation you made during Kumbh… not just Kumbh, but at every festival.”
The court also questioned why the government failed to file its response despite issuing the notice in November last year. On April 30, the authority suspended the Center for repeatedly seeking postponement rather than clarifying whether it intends to develop a mechanism to regulate rising air ticket prices.
