PTI
New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to place before it within two weeks the rules framed under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, which is aimed at modernising India’s aviation sector.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the rules be placed before it in a sealed cover, irrespective of whether they have been placed before Parliament.
The apex court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by social activist S Laxminarayanan, who has sought a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector, and regulatory guidelines to control the “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfare and ancillary charges imposed by private airlines in India.
The counsel appearing for the Centre informed the bench that the draft rules are ready and they are in the process of translation. He said the rules have to be placed before Parliament.
“We grant two weeks’ time to the respondents to place before this court in a sealed cover the rules, which have been framed, irrespective of the fact whether they are placed before the Houses of Parliament,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Ravindra Srivastava, appearing for Laxminarayanan, said till the time the new rules come into effect, the old rules are operating.
Flagging the “exorbitant airfares” being charged, Srivastava said, “The solution is that this court must consider having a robust and effective regulatory mechanism.”
which is independent.” The bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 3.
While hearing the plea on May 15, the apex court said there should be some rationalisation of airfares and asked the Centre to provide relief to flyers.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was then appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the new enactment of 2024 had come into effect in January 2025 and the corresponding rules were in the process of being prepared.
On November 17 last year, the top court sought responses from the Centre and others on Laxminarayanan’s plea seeking a robust and independent regulator that ensures transparency and passenger protection across the civil aviation sector.
On February 23, the Centre told the apex court that the Ministry of Civil Aviation was actively considering the issues raised in the plea.
While hearing the matter in January, the top court said it would interfere with the “unpredictable fluctuations” in airfares and flagged the exorbitant rise during festivals.
The top court had termed the exorbitant rise in airfares by the airlines “exploitation”, and asked the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to file their replies on the plea.
The plea claimed that all private airlines have, without any credible justification, reduced the free check-in baggage allowance for economy class passengers from 25 kg to 15 kg, “thereby converting what was earlier part of the ticketed service into a new revenue stream”.
It said the “new policy of permitting only a single piece for check-in and the absence of any rebate, compensation or benefit to passengers who do not avail themselves of check-in baggage demonstrates the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the measure”.
The plea claimed that currently, no authority has the power to review or cap airfares or ancillary fees, allowing the airlines to exploit consumers through hidden charges and unpredictable pricing.
It also said the “unregulated, opaque and exploitative conduct of airlines manifesting in arbitrary fare hikes, unilateral reduction of services, absence of on-ground grievance redressal and unjustified dynamic pricing algorithms directly infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights to equality, freedom of movement and life with dignity”.
The plea said the absence of regulatory safeguards results in arbitrary fare hikes, especially during festivals or weather disruptions, which disproportionately harm the poor and last-minute travellers.
It added that inaction by the state in regulating fare algorithms, cancellation policies, service continuity and grievance mechanisms constitutes a dereliction of its constitutional duty and calls for urgent judicial intervention.
