Festive Air Travel Becomes a Costly Affair, Supreme Court Offers No Immediate Relief to Passengers

NEW DELHI: For thousands of people hoping to reunite with their families during the festive season, flying home has become an expensive proposition.

As ticket prices on several domestic routes reportedly soar far beyond their normal levels, a legal attempt to secure immediate protection for passengers has failed to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene ahead of its scheduled hearing.

The issue reached a three-judge bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath on Monday, when an application was mentioned for urgent consideration.

The court, however, was unwilling to advance the proceedings. Responding to the request, Justice Nath remarked, “Don’t travel by air,” before taking up the next case.

The brief exchange came amid mounting concerns over the financial burden imposed on travellers during Diwali, Bhai Dooj and Chhath Puja, when demand for flights to several destinations traditionally rises sharply.

The application forms part of a continuing legal challenge brought by social activist S. Laxminarayanan, who has questioned the freedom enjoyed by airlines to increase fares substantially during periods of high demand.

His immediate concern was the timing of the proceedings.

With the petition scheduled to return before the court on November 16, the applicant argued that any relief granted then would be of little practical value to passengers who had already completed their festival journeys.

When demand rises, passengers pay the price

At the centre of the controversy is the system through which airlines adjust ticket prices according to demand, seat availability and booking patterns.

Laxminarayanan has argued that while commercial airlines are entitled to recover legitimate operating expenses, the pricing mechanism should not permit extraordinary increases simply because large numbers of passengers need to travel at the same time.

His application referred to reports suggesting that tickets on certain domestic sectors were being offered at two to seven times their customary rates.

The petitioner’s argument distinguishes between a reasonable increase arising from higher operating costs and an excessive charge imposed because passengers have limited alternatives.

Airlines frequently cite aviation turbine fuel expenses as a major factor influencing fares. The applicant, however, maintains that fluctuations in fuel costs cannot adequately explain increases of such magnitude.

The dispute raises a wider question about whether market-driven pricing should operate without effective limits when travel becomes a necessity rather than a matter of convenience.

Court had earlier questioned unusually high fares

The Supreme Court’s latest refusal to grant an early hearing contrasts with the concern expressed by the bench during previous proceedings.

In January, Justice Nath had strongly criticised the exceptionally high fares reported during major religious gatherings, including the Kumbh.

The court had referred to tickets between Delhi and destinations such as Prayagraj and Jodhpur becoming approximately three times more expensive than usual.

The bench had described the situation as exploitation and indicated that judicial intervention could be necessary.

The issue returned to the court in May, when the judges again questioned the absence of a rational approach to fare determination.

One example discussed during those proceedings involved economy-class tickets on the same route being sold by different airlines for approximately Rs 8,000 and Rs 18,000 on the same day.

The court had urged the government to consider measures capable of protecting passengers against such sharp disparities.

Appearing for the Centre and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had informed the bench that regulatory provisions were being prepared under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024.

Why the petitioner wants government oversight

The legal challenge is not directed against every increase in airfare. Instead, it seeks to establish whether there should be a reasonable boundary beyond which airlines cannot raise prices merely because demand is unusually high.

Laxminarayanan has drawn comparisons with other sectors where public interest considerations influence pricing.

Railway flexi-fares operate within prescribed limits, while essential medicines and electricity tariffs are subject to different forms of statutory regulation.

The applicant argues that air transport, which is treated as an essential service under the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981, should not be left entirely to commercial pricing decisions.

According to the plea, the absence of effective safeguards places passengers at a disadvantage, particularly when they must travel urgently for family, medical or other unavoidable reasons.

Larger question remains unanswered

The controversy also places the government’s approach to aviation regulation under scrutiny.

The Centre has been working on a new regulatory framework under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024. However, the petitioner’s immediate demand concerns protection against exceptional ticket prices during the current festive travel period.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to advance the hearing means that no interim fare restriction has been ordered in response to the latest application.

The underlying petition remains pending, and the court has yet to decide whether the existing pricing system requires judicially directed safeguards.

For passengers facing unusually expensive tickets, the immediate position remains unchanged: airlines continue to determine fares under the prevailing regulatory framework, while the legal challenge seeking greater protection awaits further consideration on November 16.