CCI orders probe into IndiGo over flight cancellations, fare surge

The Competition Commission of India (CCI/ Commission) on February 4 ordered a detailed investigation into InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo Airlines) for alleged abuse of dominance following large-scale flight cancellations in December 2025 and the consequent surge in airfares across domestic routes [Karthikeya Rawal Vs Indigo].

The Commission noted that during December 3–5, 2025, IndiGo cancelled 2,507 flights and delayed 1,852 flights, affecting over three lakh passengers nationwide who were left with no alternatives. It also took note of a ₹22.20 crore fine imposed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation for the disruptions.

Since Indigo accounts for nearly 60 percent of the domestic air passenger marker share, the acts by the airline prima facie amounted to abuse of dominance, the CCI ruled while ordering a probe into the airlines.

The order was passed under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act), directing the Director General (DG) under the Act to complete the investigation within 90 days

The case arose from a complaint filed by a passenger (informant), who alleged that IndiGo cancelled its flights at short notice during the first week of December 2025 and thereafter, charged substantially higher fares on the same routes.

According to the informant, after his return flights on the Delhi–Goa–Bengaluru sector were cancelled, IndiGo did not offer alternative arrangements, forcing him to rebook at a much higher fare. He alleged that this conduct amounted to excessive pricing by a dominant airline, in violation of Section 4 of the Act.

IndiGo objected to the CCI’s jurisdiction, arguing that the matter was governed exclusively by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937, under which the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) exercises regulatory control.

The airline contended that airfare regulation and issues arising from cancellations fell squarely within the domain of the DGCA and that competition law scrutiny was impliedly excluded.

The CCI rejected this argument and held that sectoral regulation does not oust the jurisdiction of competition law authorities.

The competition watchdog placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. CCI and held that while the DGCA regulates safety and operational aspects, it does not conduct competition law analysis such as market delineation, dominance assessment or examination of abuse.

"The existence of regulatory or penal remedies under the BVA does not, by itself, oust or bar the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Act. Remedies under competition law are directed towards Case No. 44 of 2025 10 preserving the competitive process, protecting market structure and preventing distortions in the marketplace, which are objectives distinct from sectoral regulation. Accordingly, the Commission finds no merit in the jurisdictional objections raised by IndiGo," the CCI held.

The DGCA informed the Commission that it does not possess economic regulatory powers over airfares, and that airlines are free to set tariffs subject to transparency requirements under Rule 135 of the Aircraft Rules.

The CCI noted that the DGCA’s powers under Rule 135 are corrective and supervisory, and cannot be equated with adjudication of abuse of dominance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act

Relying on data furnished by the DGCA, the CCI noted that IndiGo consistently accounts for around 60–63% of domestic passenger market share and approximately 60% of total Available Seat Kilometres (ASKM) in FY 2023–24 and FY 2024–25.

The Commission also noted that IndiGo operated as the sole airline on over 330 domestic routes, maintained the largest fleet in India, and was the only major airline reporting sustained profitability during the relevant period.

On this basis, the CCI formed a prima facie view that IndiGo holds a dominant position in the domestic aviation market

The Commission noted that during December 3–5, 2025, IndiGo cancelled 2,507 flights and delayed 1,852 flights, affecting over three lakh passengers nationwide. It also took note of a ₹22.20 crore fine imposed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation for the disruptions.

The CCI observed that due to Indigo's flight cancellations, passengers were left with no real alternatives and were compelled to rebook at sharply higher fares. It held that such conduct, if established, could amount to:

• imposition of unfair or excessive prices under Section 4(2)(a)(i); and

• restriction of provision of services by withholding capacity under Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Commission concluded that a prima facie case of abuse of dominance was made out against IndiGo.

Thus, the CCI directed the Director General to investigate the matter and submit a report within 90 days.

The CCI clarified that its observations are prima facie and do not amount to a final determination on merits.

[Read Order]