The Supreme Court on Friday, May 15, said that there has to be some rationalisation of airfares and asked the central government to provide relief to flyers.
Speaking on the matter, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta highlighted that on the same day, one airline flying in the same sector charges a particular airfare while another one charges a different airfare.
“Try to give some relief to the people because of the discrepancy. On the same day, flights to the same sector, one airline charges ₹8,000 while the other airline charges ₹18,000 for the economy class,” the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre.
Justice Mehta said, “There should be some rationalisation (of airfares)”. This came after the Solicitor General noted that a new enactment of 2024 has come into effect and the corresponding rules are in the process of consultation, PTI reported.
SG Mehta stated that the central government was not disputing the problem and treating the issue as non-adversarial, considering all aspects.
The top court was hearing a petition by social activist S Laxminarayanan seeking a robust and independent regulator to ensure transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector. Further, Laxminarayanan asked for regulatory guidelines to control the “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfare and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in the country.
While appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava submitted that rules are already there under the Aircraft Act of 1937, but noted that the problem was that they were not being followed.
SG Mehta agreed that old rules are in place, but new ones being formulated under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam of 2024, which came into effect in January 2025.
Srivastava said that old rules will continue until new rules are framed. He submitted that the old rules mention that if the DGCA is satisfied that in a particular situation, the airlines are indulging in charging predatory or excessive fares, it will issue directions.
“They are not issuing any directions. The rules are there, the power is there but it is a case of non-exercise of powers,” he submitted.
The bench later posted the matter for further hearing on July 13.