The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday issued notice to the Union government on a far-reaching public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges opaque, unpredictable and allegedly exploitative pricing practices in India’s civil aviation sector. The bench of justice Vikram Nath and justice Sandeep Mehta sought the Union government’s reply within four weeks, stating that the issues raised merit detailed consideration in view of the growing dependence on air travel across the country.
The PIL, filed by social activist S Laxminarayanan, questions the legality and constitutionality of algorithm-driven dynamic pricing, last-minute surcharges, sudden fare spikes and the widespread industry practice of reducing complimentary check-in baggage from 25kg to 15kg.
Issuing notice, SC directed the Union government to respond on whether a regulatory vacuum in the aviation sector allows airlines to impose volatile fares and ancillary charges at their own discretion, often multiple times in a single day.
According to the petition, air travel has become an essential mobility lifeline for millions, particularly for patients, students, migrant workers and those in regions where rail or road networks are constrained. Yet passengers remain at the mercy of opaque pricing algorithms operated by private carriers. The petition says these practices disproportionately harm those travelling due to urgent medical, educational or employment needs, amounting to a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It argues that essential mobility is being commodified and that unpredictable fare spikes deprive citizens of equality, dignity and meaningful access to emergency transportation.
Mr Laxminarayanan cites instances of dramatic fare surges, such as during the Maha Kumbh pilgrimage or in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror incident, where airfares reportedly increased four to six times within hours. He says such sudden spikes penalise vulnerable passengers who have no option but to book at the last minute, while wealthier travellers benefit from advance planning.
He contends that in situations involving medical emergencies, natural disasters, public crises or weather disruptions, air travel becomes the only viable mode of transport, making it unconscionable for airlines to inflate fares without regulatory oversight. In these circumstances, he argues, air travel is not a luxury but a compulsion, and exorbitant pricing directly undermines the fundamental right to life under Article 21.
The PIL stresses that air transport has been statutorily recognised as an essential service under the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA), placing it in the same category as railways and postal services.
The activist argues that if essential services such as healthcare, electricity, postal services and railway travel are subject to tariff regulation for public benefit, it is constitutionally inconsistent that airfares and baggage charges remain unregulated. He draws parallels with sectors like electricity, where independent regulatory commissions conduct public hearings and approve pricing models, and with hospitals and pharmaceutical services, where authorities are empowered to fix ceiling prices and prevent profiteering.
Similar interventions were made during the COVID-19 pandemic, when constitutional courts capped prices of medicines, oxygen cylinders and hospital admissions to ensure equitable access, he says.
Mr Laxminarayanan argues that such regulatory principles must apply equally to airlines, especially during emergencies when the absence of alternatives magnifies the risk of exploitation. He points out that toll road operators and parking contractors on government land are prohibited from charging more during peak demand, yet airlines face no such restrictions. He says that unpredictability in pricing disproportionately impacts the poor, who often book flights closer to the date of travel due to urgent circumstances and, therefore, end up paying the highest fares.
A key grievance aired in the petition is the across-the-board reduction of free check-in baggage from 25kg to 15kg. At the prevailing excess-baggage rate of Rs660 per kg, the petitioner argues that this reduction effectively permits airlines to extract up to Rs6,000 per passenger in additional charges for what was earlier included in the base fare. He also notes that airlines now allow only one piece of checked baggage and do not offer any rebate or compensation to passengers who travel without check-in luggage, illustrating what he describes as arbitrary and discriminatory conduct.
According to the PIL, these practices persist because there is no statutory mechanism to regulate either airfares or ancillary charges. The directorate general of civil aviation (DGCA), which operates under the Union ministry of civil aviation, focuses only on safety standards and lacks the authority to review or cap fares.
"The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) regulates only airport tariffs, while the DGCA’s Passenger Charter issued in 2019 remains non-binding and unenforceable. This regulatory vacuum, the petitioner submits, has enabled airlines to impose unpredictable charges without public accountability or consideration for consumer welfare," he says.
Drawing from global models and domestic regulatory precedents, Mr Laxminarayanan has sought the establishment of an independent aviation tariff and consumer protection commission with full statutory backing and quasi-judicial powers. This body, he proposes, should have the power to cap dynamic pricing and day-of-travel surcharges, review and approve fare structures through public consultation, prescribe uniform baggage norms, standardise cancellation and refund compensation, mandate on-site grievance redressal at airports and impose penalties for non-compliance. He also relies on recommendations of the Rajya Sabha standing committee on transport, tourism and culture which, in its March 2025 report, called for the creation of such a regulator.
The Supreme Court has now sought the Union government’s detailed reply on these issues, setting the stage for a potentially significant judicial examination of pricing practices in a sector that has seen explosive growth but minimal consumer-protective regulation. The matter will be heard again after the government files its response.
In the US - there is a 24 hour rule where-in the customer can cancel the ticket at no cost within 24 hours. It would be really good to have something like this in India.