We missed this earlier: The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition challenging unregulated airline fare hikes and opaque dynamic pricing practices. The petitioner has asked the court to direct the Union government to set up an independent aviation tariff and consumer protection regulator. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has sought responses within four weeks.
The issue carries major implications for passengers because airlines currently have the freedom to change fares several times within minutes. Prices also surge during festivals, medical emergencies, or travel disruptions. The petition describes this as exploitative and argues that passengers have no protection because India has no statutory body that regulates airfares or ancillary charges. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regulates safety. The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) regulates airport tariffs. However, neither can intervene when fares swing unpredictably or when airlines impose new charges on baggage and seat selection.
The petitioner says air travel has become essential for millions, especially in regions where surface connectivity is weak. Therefore, the plea argues that unchecked pricing harms access, affordability, and predictability for travellers. It notes that airlines reduced the free baggage allowance for economy passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg and now charge Rs 660 per kg for excess baggage, which can increase trip costs by several thousand rupees.
Core Arguments in the Petition
The plea states that dynamic pricing algorithms can double or triple fares within hours, and that airlines use opaque pricing models with no disclosure or oversight. Additionally, shrinking services, inconsistent ancillary charges, and weak grievance-redressal mechanisms leave consumers without any real remedy.
For context, DGCA’s Passenger Charter is non-binding and cannot penalise airlines. The petitioner argues that this regulatory vacuum enables unilateral decisions by private airlines despite air travel being designated an essential service under the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA).
Constitutional and Legal Basis
The petitioner has filed the case under Article 32 and argues that airline pricing practices violate three core constitutional protections. The plea invokes Article 14, which guarantees equality and bars arbitrary State action, to argue that passengers face unchecked and unpredictable pricing because no authority exercises real oversight.
It also invokes Article 19, which protects the freedom of movement, to argue that excessive and volatile fares directly restrict this fundamental right. Additionally, the plea cites Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and dignity, noting that courts have interpreted it to include access to essential public services. The petitioner contends that exploitative pricing fails this standard.
For context, the petitioner cites Supreme…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
