The Supreme Court recently sought the Central government's response on a plea seeking regulatory guidelines to control unpredictable fluctuations in airfare and extra charges imposed by private airlines during festive seasons and holidays [S Laxminarayanan Versus Union Of India And Ors.]
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta flagged what it called exploitative pricing by airlines especially during festivals and major events like the Kumbh Mela.
"Look at the exploitation you did during Kumbh," Justice Mehta remarked during the hearing.
"Not only Kumbh, but every festival," added Justice Nath.
"Take the statistics for these two towns, Prayagraj and Jodhpur, the flight fares are 3 times the flight fares before the festivals," Justice Mehta said.
The plea before the Court said that air travel is no longer a luxury but an essential service for millions, especially during emergencies, festivals, and situations where trains and roads are unavailable.
It was argued that airlines today use opaque, algorithm-driven dynamic pricing systems that allow fares to change multiple times a day. According to the petitioner, this hits the poor and middle class the hardest, because they often book tickets at the last minute due to emergencies like illness, death in the family, exams or sudden work travel.
The petitioner contended that air travel is already recognised as an essential service under the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981, which treats transport by air at par with railways and postal services. Yet, unlike railways, electricity or healthcare, airline pricing has no real regulatory oversight.
The petitioner also pointed out that airlines have reduced free baggage limits from 25 kg to 15 kg and now charge high excess baggage fees, turning basic services into profit tools. There is no regulator today with the power to cap fares or control extra charges, it was submitted.
The petitioner sought directions to the Union government and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to frame binding rules on airfare pricing, cap surge pricing, regulate baggage and extra charges, fix cancellation and refund norms, and create an independent aviation regulator with powers to protect consumers.
The counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the plea itself was not maintainable. He said that after 1994, the aviation sector was deregulated and fare decisions were left to airlines.
He told the Court that the petitioner was effectively asking judges to regulate fares in a system where pricing had been consciously left to market forces.
However, the Bench immediately pushed back, saying deregulation could not mean exploitation of citizens.
"We will interfere in this," the bench said directing the respondents to file counter affidavits in response to the plea.
The Court then passed a short order granting four weeks’ time to the respondents to file counter affidavits and listed the matter for further hearing on February 23.