SC slams Centre over airfare regulation plea

The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Centre for not filing its affidavit on a petition which sought regulatory guidelines to control the “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfare and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in India.

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked the Centre to file an application along with an affidavit giving reasons for why the affidavit has not been filed and why further time was sought for it.

On November 17 last year, the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea by social activist S Laxminarayanan, who sought a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector.

As soon as the hearing commenced on Thursday, the counsel appearing for the petitioner said no reply has been filed by the Centre yet. The Centre’s counsel referred to the evolving situation in the Middle East. “What is this? What prevents you from filing an affidavit,” the bench asked. The Centre’s counsel said they were contemplating framing rules.

“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 bench said.

The Centre’s counsel requested that three weeks’ time be granted to file the affidavit. The bench refused to grant three weeks’ time and said the affidavit be filed next week.

“You file your affidavit and say whatever you want to say. Your affidavit must come by next Friday (May 8),” the bench said.

In its order, the bench said despite the fact that notice was issued on the petition on November 17 last year and thereafter time was granted to the respondents to file the affidavit, “till date no affidavit has been filed”.

It said today also the counsel representing the Centre has sought some more time. “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. List again on May 11,” the bench said.

On February 23, the Centre told the apex court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the plea.

While hearing the matter on January 19, the top court said it would interfere with the “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfares and flagged the exorbitant rise during festivals. The top court had termed the exorbitant rise of airfares by the airlines as “exploitation” and asked the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to file their replies on the plea.

In November last year, it had issued notices to the Centre, the DGCA and the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India seeking their responses on the plea.

The plea claimed that all private airlines have, without any credible justification, reduced the free check-in baggage allowance for economy class passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg, “thereby converting what was earlier part of the ticketed service into a new revenue stream”.

It said the “new policy of permitting only a single piece for check-in and the absence of any rebate, compensation or benefit to passengers who do not avail themselves of check-in baggage demonstrates the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the measure”.

The plea claimed that currently, no authority has the power to review or cap airfares or ancillary fees, allowing the airlines to exploit consumers through hidden charges and unpredictable pricing.

It said the “unregulated, opaque and exploitative conduct of airlines manifesting in arbitrary fare hikes, unilateral reduction of services, absence of on-ground grievance redressal and unjustified dynamic pricing algorithms directly infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights to equality, freedom of movement and life with dignity”.

It said the absence of regulatory safeguards results in arbitrary fare hikes, especially during festivals or weather disruptions, which disproportionately harm poor and last-minute travellers.

The plea said inaction by the State in regulating fare algorithms, cancellation policies, service continuity and grievance mechanisms constitutes a dereliction of its constitutional duty and calls for urgent judicial intervention.