The SC asks the Center to introduce new rules for aviation to regulate volatile ticket prices
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) asked the Union government to take note of the new aviation rules laid down under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam 2024 to regulate volatile ticket prices and predatory pricing in civil aviation. The court was informed that the regulations have already been finalized and are currently being translated into Hindi and other official languages before being tabled in Parliament.
Appearing for the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik informed a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that the regulations would be tabled in Parliament during the upcoming monsoon session scheduled to begin on July 21.
However, senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava, appearing for the petitioners, argued that as per the provisions of the 2024 Act, the new rules must first be published for public consultation before being tabled in Parliament.
“After the rules are drawn up, they must be published for public consultation. Only then can they be submitted to parliament,” he added. After finding merit in the submission, the Bench granted two weeks’ time to the Center to submit the draft aviation rules to the court in a sealed envelope.
“…The respondents must peruse the rules before this Court without waiting for their presentation in Parliament. In view of the above submissions, we grant the respondents a period of two weeks to produce before this Court the rules as framed, whether or not they are presented to Parliament, in a sealed envelope,” the Bench ordered.
The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by social activist S. Laxminarayan seeking the formulation of binding regulatory norms to address arbitrary fares and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines during festive seasons, holidays and emergencies.
‘We’re sorry’
Mr. Srivastava also alleged that the surge in ticket prices during festivals was exploitative and blamed the ongoing inaction of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for the prevailing condition. The Union government in April shelved the directive issued on March 18 by the DGCA, which required airlines to offer at least 60% seats without any seat selection charge, he said.
The March 18 directive also required airlines to ensure that passengers traveling under the same Passenger Name Record (PNR) sit together, “preferably in adjacent seats”, among other passenger-friendly measures.
“The DGCA, which is the regulator, issues guidelines and the government withdraws those guidelines… It is an unfortunate situation. Your Lordships must consider putting in place a very robust and independent regulatory mechanism,” the petitioner’s counsel said.
This prompted Justice Mehta to note that recent reports suggesting that Iran may close the Strait of Hormuz, despite a cease-fire announced in June, had once again provided a “window” for airlines to hike fares on the pretext of a looming oil crisis.
However, Mr. Srivastava said the affidavit on record showed that the fuel component was not more than 10% of the cost of the tickets even though the prices had increased exponentially.
“The fuel component of the ticket price is a maximum of 10%. The increase is 100 to 300% during this period. This is a very deplorable state of affairs. Your Lordship must do something,” he said.
The bench agreed to look into the concerns raised and posted the matter for further hearing on August 3.
Currently, there is no regulatory body with the power to review or limit ticket prices, allowing airlines to take advantage of consumers through hidden fees and unpredictable prices, the petition said. Such practices disproportionately affect economically weaker passengers, who are often forced to buy tickets during periods of peak price increases, while wealthier travelers can plan and book in advance, the company said.
“In a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law, the state cannot remain a silent spectator to this ongoing violation of rights. The state’s inaction in regulating tariff algorithms, cancellation policies, service continuity and complaint mechanisms constitutes a violation of its constitutional duty and requires urgent judicial intervention,” the lawsuit states.
The court was further informed that such continued inaction by the state in regulating tariff algorithms, cancellation fees, service continuity and complaint redressal mechanisms constitutes a violation of constitutional duty and requires urgent judicial intervention.
Published – 13 Jul 2026 16:19 IST