Attempting to fast-track process on airfare pricing: Centre to SC

The Centre further indicated that the pending PIL should now be treated merely as “representation or suggestions” to the draft rules and disposed of

The Union government has urged the Supreme Court to refrain from continuing its monitoring of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging volatile airfares and airline charges, stating that a comprehensive statutory rule-making exercise is already underway and that the Centre is attempting to fast-track the process in light of the “emerging scenario”.

The matter was listed before the bench on Monday but was adjourned without any substantive hearing. (File image)

In an affidavit filed before a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) maintained that the broader issues raised in the petition, including surge pricing during festivals and holidays, baggage charges and algorithm-driven fare fluctuations, are under active consideration as part of the framing of new aviation rules under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam (BVA), 2024.

The Centre further indicated that the pending PIL should now be treated merely as “representation or suggestions” to the draft rules and disposed of, contending that any grievance against the eventual rules could constitute a fresh cause of action.

“It is submitted that the present petition may be ordered to be treated as representation or suggestions to the draft rules and the petition be disposed of since finalization of rules would become a separate cause of action, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by it,” the affidavit said.

The affidavit comes in response to the court’s repeated concern over steep and unpredictable airfare spikes, particularly during festival seasons, emergencies and major events such as the Kumbh Mela, when the bench had earlier remarked upon alleged “exploitation” by airlines.

Seeking to assure the court that passenger interests remain central to policy considerations, the Centre said that air travel had now become “an indispensable service for millions of citizens” and that the government remained “deeply committed” to consumer welfare even while preserving a competitive aviation market.

“The Union’s objective 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 pointed out that the enactment of the BVA had triggered a transition away from the nearly century-old Aircraft Act framework, necessitating an overhaul of subordinate aviation regulations.

According to the affidavit, the ministry of civil aviation and the DGCA are presently in “advanced stages” of finalising draft rules that would replace the erstwhile Aircraft Rules, 1937.

The Centre stressed that the exercise involved multiple layers of statutory scrutiny, including parliamentary oversight under Section 35 of the 2024 law, which requires the proposed rules to be laid 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 said.

At the same time, the government told the court that efforts were being made to expedite deliberations considering the “emerging scenario”.

“The Union is making every effort to fast-track these deliberations in the wake of emerging scenario,” it said, adding that the government viewed the PIL as “non-adversarial”.

The Centre also defended the present deregulated pricing model, arguing that liberalisation of the aviation sector had significantly improved connectivity and affordability while allowing the government to intervene in exceptional situations threatening public interest.

“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 added.

Laxminarayan’s plea challenges what it terms “unregulated, opaque and exploitative” airfare practices adopted by private airlines, particularly during festive seasons and emergencies. The plea also raises grievance over reduction of baggage allowances and rising ancillary charges imposed on passengers.

The petition seeks directions to frame binding norms on airfare pricing, cap surge pricing during peak demand periods, regulate add-on charges and establish an independent aviation regulator to safeguard consumer interests.

During hearings earlier this year, the Supreme Court had repeatedly expressed concern over volatile airfare pricing. In February, the bench termed the issue a “very serious concern”, observing that such matters ordinarily would not warrant invocation of Article 32 jurisdiction unless substantial public interest was involved. During a hearing in January, the court had remarked: “Look at the exploitation you did during Kumbh…Not only Kumbh, but every festival.”

The court had also questioned why the government had failed to file its response despite notice being issued in November last year. On April 30, the bench pulled up the Centre for repeatedly seeking adjournments instead of clarifying whether it intended to evolve a mechanism to regulate airfare spikes.